Caucus votes are not popular votes, stop counting them that way

[CreekDog]

Two states, similar populations, similar numbers of Democrats:

Minnesota population: 4.9 million caucus delegate votes: approximately 212k votes = 72 delegates
Wisconsin population: 5.5 million primary votes: approximately 1.1m votes = 74 delegates

Hillary Clinton counts this result as meaning that Wisconsin has almost 6 times more representation in the nomination as Minnesota. She is making it sound as if this is fair. No it's not.

A state's clout in this process is based on the number of Democrats in that state and the number of Democrats they elect. Not surprisingly, Wisconsin and Minnesota are nearly equal in population, delegates and thus, representation in choosing the Democratic nominee, based on the rules Hillary and Obama agreed to.

Had Minnesota been told they would get less than 1/5th the influence of neighbor Wisconsin because caucuses were going to count for less, they should have been given a chance (and would have) scheduled a primary in all likelihood.

Counting these contests as popular votes (which they aren't --they aren't certified by regisgtrars of voters, no secret ballot, etc.) is unfair to the people participating in them.

Caucuses, like them or not, are a way for people to choose who will represent them at the convention. To say otherwise as if it were a popular vote is changing the rules after the fact and is in fact not fairness.

And by the way, that tax return that you made a mistake on and threw in the garbage, we're counting that as your official return, and since you made a mistake on it, you are going to jail. Unfair? Why, you are arguing that changing the rules after the fact is fair in this instance, aren't you?

:rant:

[goldcanyonaz]

1. would this be anything like Nebraska?

[CreekDog]

2. no, Nebraska under "popular vote" counting gets only 38k votes

and Puerto Rico, with a primary, would count more than almost any caucus state.

1) is that within the rules? no
2) is that fair? no
3) is a caucus vote a popular vote? no

if you want to argue that, get out there and argue that caucuses should be invalidated and present your alternative proposal.

and put on your flame retardant pants.

[wellstone dem]

3. Wisconsin counts more than Minnesota--Never

now if it counts more than Iowa, that's another story. :-)

[mohc]

4. If only they had some metric that normalized the results from different types of contests

Oh wait they do, they're called delegates.

[Zynx]

5. Except Georgia has more delegates than Wisconsin with fewer voters.

That's BS. Wisconsin has more Democratic voters than Georgia at close to 1.5 million to 1.36 million in 2004. The fact Georgia has more delegates is not reflective of Democratic voters, but only of population.

[mohc]

6. Those numbers are not directly comparable though

WI had turnout around 72% of Voting Age Population in 2004 (I could not use registered voters as WI does not have a party registration system). GA had turnout around 52%. While one could certainly argue that influence should diminish with lower turnout, in general that is not the practice. The voters that do vote in GA are in effect representing some larger block of voters when compared to WI. NJ and NC have the same number of electoral votes as GA, yet have far more delegates. The formula for the delegate totals take both population and level of Democratic vote in the state into account (NC also got a bonus for holding its primary later).

[CreekDog]

7. the "let's not count" caucuses argument is still going strong, so I'm kicking this

shamelessly. :hi: