Doesn't the popular vote disenfranchise caucus states?

[George_Bonanza]

All this talk about the popular vote only counts the result in primary states, which is supposedly Clinton country (I say supposedly because Obama still beats her handily in popular votes). If only we could come up with a system that somehow reflects the will of the voters in both caucus and primary states.

Oh yeah, it's called pledged delegates!

Anyway, I feel delegates vs. popular votes is a moot point because Obama will win both of them. Even if you count the tainted Florida results and the even more tainted Michigan results, Obama still comes out ahead and that's not even counting his victories in states like Washington and Maine (which have not reported results yet). And there's no way that Hillary is blowing out Obama in Michigan, or maybe even Florida, should Obama have a chance to campaign in both states.

[Muttocracy]

1. some data on the subject...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

[tritsofme]

2. This spreadsheet lets you predict all sorts of scenarios, including caucus estimates.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/chooseyourown.html

An interesting tool.

[pinto]

3. It's not about Obama v. Clinton, it's about the structure of the state parties and DNC agreements.

Go to the source, whomever you support in this primary system. You'll get some clarification there, as convoluted as it may be.

(aside) It's good to see a bigger focus on how our party picks a nominee. This hasn't happened since 1968.

:kick:

[PseudoIntellect]

4. I agree; pledged delegates is the most accurate way of measuring voter support

as long as the system has BOTH primaries and caucuses.

If the system was only caucuses or only primaries, then the popular vote argument would be more valid.

[SoCalDem]

5. Yes.. and that's why the *popular vote* is meaningless in "primary season"

The campaign for the nomination consists of

D E L E G A T E S...D E L E G A T E S...D E L E G A T E S

and ONLY

D E L E G A T E S

Every state dishes out their delegates in a different manner, and most are BASED on popular vote count, but not necessarily as an aggregate number.... some hand them out by county..by district..and some places hold back some as "at-large" delegates to be designated later..

All campaigns have plenty of time to pore over the various rules & odd manners of selection...well BEFORE any campaign starts, so there is NO REASON to question or criticize states for the way they do things..

Candidates who are math-challenged or who consider "small unimportant states" too much trouble to bother with, can just shine them on...but then later when they are behind, they also should not moan & groan and threaten lawsuits

[tritsofme]

9. You are right in that it is a straight delegates game, unless neither candidate makes it to 2025

Then pledged delegates are one of many variables that could be used to determine who should be the nominee by SDs.

[SoCalDem]

12. That's why, if there are to BE super delegates, once there are TWO

candidates, they need to line up then and there..so that each candidate knows exactly how many SD votes they have..

The aspect of some of them signing on, and some holding back to potentially be "king-makers" is the obscene part..

I would like to see them all vote anonymously, and on the day it becomes a two-person race.. That would actually empower the "little people" to get out there and vote... that it truly wa up to them to put their person over the mark..

With the soooopers, someone probably WILL reach 2025, so why not just have them vote before the thing's OVER... instead of rationiing their support one drop at a time.. If, after doing that, one cnadidate pulls a Huckleberry and refuses to drop out, they could still weigh in by removing their support from one candidate, and ending it there..

[Condem]

6. Good call, George Bonanza

The Clintons hate caucuses because there's no curtain to hide behind. Hence, a true vote.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

7. Primaries are "BALLOTS" cast. just like in the GE..Not hands raised and counted in Caucuses

caucus are a very MINUTE precentage of the population

[Condem]

8. Yeah

No secondary motives, whatsoever.

[wileedog]

11. Right, which means that

caucus states are largely discounted if primary popular vote is used as any kind of validation stick for election.

The contest is set up for Pledged Delegates to determine the winner. However a state decides how those delegates will be determined is up to them, primary or caucus (or both for TX).

Arbitrarily giving weight to the popular vote as anything more than an amusing statistic at this point is patently unfair to those states who chose a caucus system (whatever you feel about them). I'm sure if most of them were told at the beginning that popular vote would make any difference at all they would have looked to switch to increase their influence.

Stop. Moving. The. Goal. Posts.

[Skink]

10. Texas demonstrated to me how Caucus's disenfranchise...

I had to work during the caucus. I voted at my liesure in the primary during the early voing.

[MaineDem]

13. No it doesn't "disenfranchise" but

Popular vote has no bearing in how we select our candidate.

(I think we should be extremely careful how we use the term "disenfranchise".)

You're right, there is no way to compare primary states total vote and caucus states total vote so the talk of one winning the popular vote is really irrelevant.

It's totally about delegates. That's the way the system was designed and that's what it has to be. Each state has its own way of determining delegates. Unless we all did things the exact same way there are going to be variables. That won't change this cycle.

Either candidate can say he or she has won the popular vote but it's impossible to count precisely.

[crankychatter]

14. The States have the right to conduct delegate apportionment within DNC perameters

So if Texas says Obama won

Then Obama won Texas

all the rest is BS

[mckeown1128]

15. kick. nt