"National popular vote" is an inane concept in a primary race

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I imagine saying this favors Obama more than Clinton, but it's kind of undeniable:

When every State has a different system, the concept of the national popular vote is nuts.

It is also kind of nuts to talk about "the will of the people" and crushing landslides based on caucus results.

In this weekends caucus victories, Obama dominated 2:1, but among roughly 30,000 people per caucus state. Having attended several football games in my life, where stadiums routinely hold 50,000-65,0000 people, I view 30,000 people as a joke... that's half an average football audience. (Or a third or fourth of a major college game.)

I doubt the university of Nebraska has ever drawn as few as 30,000 people to a football game since the 1940s. So a Nebraska caucus of 30,000 people total is not the "will of the people" of Nebraska.

But at the same time, it is absurd to talk about a national "popular vote" because caucuses will ALWAYS draw a small fraction of primary participation.

In closing:

Obama supporters: Dominating a caucus contains surprisingly little information about performance in a November Presidential election.

Clinton supporters: "Popular vote" is an inane concept in talking about who garners the most support in a primary season. For good or ill, each state has its own system for choosing convention delegates, and it makes no sense to compare apples and oranges.

[Schema Thing]

1. "Democratic primary popular vote" however, is not inane.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. Unfortunately it is because it is not random which states have primaries

Samller states tend to have caucuses, on average.

California is more important than Nebraska, of course. But it is arbitrary to eliminate Nebraska from a national measure of strength just because they had a caucus.

Since Obama does better, on average, in smaller states, looking at only primary totals is sure to underestimate his support.

People should, however, realize that super delegates are part of an inter-locking system. The many inequities of primaries and caucuses were well understood when the overall system was set up.

If Nebraska wants to allocate its delegates based on 30,000 people, that is Nebraka's call to make. And if super delegates do one thing or another, that is their call to make.

Any formulation of "equity" that discounts any part of the overall system is discriminatory in one direction or another.

That's why, after looking at this thing from a lot of angles, I have concluded that the rules are the rules are the rules. Correcting a seeming inequity in one place presumes that inequity is not an anticipated aspect of the overall system. The fact that the convention respects states' decisions about how to determine their own delegations is part of a big system.

It's like pick-up-sticks... each piece affects every other piece. When the rules were made they were negotiated between parties with different interests. Everyone knew about primaries and caucuses and at large superdeleagtes and the whole rest of it. That's the system. Those are the rules.

[DJ13]

2. Where was this outrage for the last year+ while Clinton lead the national polls?

Kinda late now to be complaining about this, dont you think?

[MadBadger]

4. There was a a lot more than 30,000 in Washington.

[Thrill]

5. Interesting considering the same people that think the Big states should count more