An interesting exercise with electoral votes.

[Ravy]

Find one of those interactive maps like the one at http://www.270towin.com/ and make Clinton one color and Obama the other.

I got the states won from the list at:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D

I was really surprised at the outcome.

[jillan]

1. Just tell us

:)

[Ravy]

2. Not sure I got them all right, but Clinton 266, Obama 190 with 270 to win.

Some of those little states are really hard for me to click on, but I think I got 'em right.

It just goes to show you that measuring the "will of the people" can swing widely depending on the system used.

There was another post about the lead Clinton would now enjoy if they had winner-take-all primaries.

I am not saying that any one is better than the other, but I think that using the Democratic Party's formula for awarding delegates is probably not any more accurate than any other method for measuring the "will of the people".

[jillan]

3. Ed Rendell was talking about this today on CNN.

He was saying that it is electoral votes that win the Presidency, and that Hillary is winning all the
big electoral states.

[Ravy]

4. I didn't realize she had that big of a lead (when measured the same way we elect presidents) nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

5. That makes the flawed and erroneuous assumption...

that Obama wouldn't win safe 'blue' states like California, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, etc in a general election. The 'electoral votes' argument, when one takes into consideration how certain important states are all but certain to vote in November, is nonsense.

[Ravy]

6. It makes no assumption at all.

It is just an observation that if you measure the "will of the people" one way, as we do to elect our president, and you measure the "will of the people" as the Democratic Party does it, you get strikingly different results.

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. That's because the Democratic presidential primary elections are not a general election.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Different process, different rules.

[Ravy]

8. But attempting to measure the same thing... the will of the people.

If you have two systems purporting to measure the same thing, and you get widely different results, there is a problem with one or both systems.

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. No, there's not

Electoral votes are awarded on a winner-take-all basis; Democratic delegates ffor the nominating convention are awarded proportionally according to rules determined at the state level (which in many instances means that districts with higher turnout in the last election get more delegates). Your argument is utterly asinine.

[Ravy]

10. I think I am talking above your head. Sorry.

You measure the length of a fixed object with one yardstick, you get 26.9 inches.

You measure the length of the same fixed object with another yardstick, you get 17.1 inches.

One (or both) of your yardsticks give the wrong result.



If you are trying to measure the will of the people by two different systems, both saying they are measuring the "will of the people" and you get dramatically different results, one (or both) is wrong.

I am not saying *which* is wrong, or even why it might be wrong. I am simply saying that they give vastly different results yet both claim accuracy in their measurement.

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. And I say again that your argument is utterly nonsensical.

Out of curiosity; how did you feel about Al Gore winning the popular vote yet losing the electoral vote in 2000? Because as it stands right now, minus the disallowed elections in Florida and Michigan, Obama leads Clinton in popular vote by over half a million. Were he to lead in popular vote yet trail in delegates, how would that be reflective of 'the will of the people'? What you're saying is just stupid, I'm sorry.

[Ravy]

12. I think the popular vote more accurate in measuring the "will of the people" than

the Electoral College is, if that is what you are asking. But, that just supports my argument that measuring the will of the people by different means gives different results. Do you think the 2000 election result ended up as representing the "will of the people"?

That is what all democratic elections are supposed to measure.