What would happen if Democrats changed how a nominee is selected?

[EffieBlack]

FYI. - this is not an attempt to re-fight or revisit the 2016 primaries. It is merely a concrete illustration of how the rules work, which is helpful in light of the current efforts by the DNC to tighten up its rules for 2018, 2020 and beyond.

[Sherman A1]

1. I believe that would be

what would have happened. As this primary election was a couple of years ago if I remember correctly.

[DURHAM D]

2. lol

You are destroying their lies.

[NY_20th]

3. Clinton won by every metric,

and quite decisively.

I still see many on twitter who don't seem to grasp that.

[Garrett78]

5. As I said at the time, it was essentially over by the 2nd week of March.

Replace disenfranchising caucuses with primaries and the numbers from the OP would be a lot more lopsided.

[peggysue2]

4. Yup!

Facts matter, even though they're not that popular these days

[leftstreet]

6. What's the point of the DNC 'tightening up its rules?'

[msongs]

7. losers complained the rules were unfair but the data show it made no difference lol nt

[leftstreet]

8. But I thought the only new rule was must join the party

The OP said tightening up the 'rules'...so I wondered if I'd missed something

[mcar]

9. This graph should forever stop all these silly arguments

Thank you, Effie, for your service to Democrats everywhere!

[Jim Lane]

10. Where are you getting your figures for the popular vote?

You have each candidate well below the numbers I've seen elsewhere. For example, this table gives Clinton 16.9 million, Sanders 13.2 million, and that's without counting votes cast in Iowa and some other caucus states where no exact official tally was available. (Some news organizations made estimates for the number of people supporting each candidate, based on the information that was reported, but what I've given is the minimum number.)

Also, the key line to add to the table would be the results if it hadn't been for the new rule promulgated by Debbie Wasserman Shultz that sharply curtailed the number of debates and delayed their start by several months compared to past cycles. Unfortunately, there's no way to obtain that information -- but that doesn't mean that the various rule alternatives included in the table are the only ones that matter.

[kamalafan]

12. Also caucus vote totals aren't counted IIRC

[Jim Lane]

13. I think some are and some aren't, depending on how the results are reported.

For example, from the Green Papers tabulation that I was using: It appears that the Idaho Democratic Party reported the number of votes cast for each candidate at the county caucuses, as well as the resulting number of delegates, so the page for Idaho includes raw vote numbers, based on the party's official statement of results. Those raw vote numbers are included in the national totals.

On the other hand, municipal caucuses in Maine choose delegates to the state convention, which then chooses delegates to the national convention. The state party reports only the number of state convention delegates won by each candidate, not the number of votes cast for each. As a result, the Green Papers page for Maine gives delegate numbers, but there are no raw vote numbers to include in the national tabulation.

Also, caucus participation is generally lower than participation in a primary. So, while I agree with you that not all caucuses are included, and that has some effect on the national totals, my guess is that that factor isn't enough to explain the difference of about six million votes between the total in the OP and what the Green Papers gives.

[Jamaal510]

11. K&R