Counting the "popular" vote this primary/caucus season

[CreekDog]

In case folks don't realize how counting this way severely shortchanges, underrepresents caucus states, here goes:

Two states, similar population, one caucus, one primary, counting "popular" votes means the primary state counts approximately 5 times as much as the caucus state (and the shortchanged state nearly voted for Kerry in 2004).

South Carolina (primary): pop. 4.3 million
pledged delegates allocated by DNC: 45
(votes): 529,771

Colorado (caucus): pop. 4.3 million
delegates allocated by DNC: 55
(reported delegate votes): 119,184

To retroactively say that the caucus is about 1/5th representative for the state of Colorado as South Carolina's primary is despite similar populations and in fact, more Democrats in Colorado is blatantly unfair. Had those been the rules going in, I have no doubt that Colorado (with it's Democratic governor and leglislature) would have chosen a primary instead of a caucus, but they were told that under the rules a caucus would count just as much as a primary.

To change the rules and tell states like Colorado that their states count, for example, one fifth as much as a primary states is horrendously unfair and contradicts what those states and their voters were told prior to the vote.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. Nobody's changing any rules

the superdelegates are free to consider anything they want when making their choice - and the popular vote argument is one of them.

The superdelegates are in no way obligated to vote for the pledged delegate leader.

[CreekDog]

3. so the only point of the "popular" vote argument is to convince supers?

so you discount the caucus results as undemocratic and argue that the supers should overturn it because that would be more democratic?

or it's just politics to help Hillary win?

[Warren Stupidity]

9. I don't think it plays with the supers either.

They are not that naive and will have ready access to actual facts. I have to view this talking point as aimed only at Clinton supporters and as intended to increase their disgruntlement. Mrs. Clinton is, it seems to me, engaged in sabatoge at this point.

[hokies4ever]

12. Too bad that the supers aren't flocking toward Hillary

Guess they're not buying her arguments. The flood gates might just open in full force after Obama seals the pledged delgate majority. :rofl:

[sfaprog]

14. Although a made-up # like "popular vote" will be as useful to SDs as the candidate's height

and as relevant

[sandnsea]

2. It is so sad people are being lied to this way

There's no such thing as a popular vote for the exact reason you stated. That's why it would be nothing but theft for the superdelegates to overturn the delegate count. I know DUers know better. I have no respect for any of them who spew this popular vote lie.

[CreekDog]

4. the rules allow supers to do it

the bad argument is getting them to do it by saying "caucuses are undemocratic" when in fact they are making that argument so that the supers will do something less democratic than caucuses --overrule them with their own more powerful votes.

that's a huge contradiction.

[Benhurst]

13. The rules suck and super delegates are of course undemocratic-- their

only purpose is to protect the party from choice of "the mob" -- us, the lowly voters.

And caucuses are undemocratic as well.

But there's nothing we can do about it until the next election cycle.

Clinton's people are going to have to accept the will of the caucuses. And Obama's people are stuck with a situation in which the super delegates can at the last moment if they so choose change their votes, possibly throwing the election to Clinton or a third choice. There is no way for the election to be "stolen" by either Clinton or Obama, since neither -- under the rules accepted by them both at the beginning of the primaries-- obtained sufficient elected delegates to win an automatic nomination.

I'll say it again, the system sucks. And it should be first order of business after the general election, win or lose, to change it.

The open primaries should be abolished. I have lived in two states where they were used by the Repubs to pervert the process, allowing them to strengthen our candidate they felt was easiest to defeat in the general election.

Do we want a democratic system that bows to the will of the people? Then we should go with primaries and, if necessary, runoff elections.

Do we want the party leaders to exercise control over the choice? Then caucuses and super delegates are the way to go.

No matter which way we decide to go, having one system in place across the nation would at least do away with the silly apples vs. oranges debates which have so fouled this primary season and have contributed to the more than likely possibility that whoever gets the nomination will be crippled by a divided party going into the general election.

The upcoming election should have been an easy win for us. I fear, however, we are going to be sufficiently divided for the election to be close enough to be stolen, the third such election in a row. And the hypocritical posturing by both sides at this late date makes that outcome increasingly likely. No matter who is chosen in Denver-- Clinton, Obama or a third party-- supporters of the other candidate are going to feel cheated. And, in truth, they will have been, as have we all, by an extremely flawed primary system.

[Sensitivity]

5. Clinton is pushing a FRAUD that trashes the representation of Caucus States. It is MONSTROUS

and Party leaders who much see this clearly should put a stop to it because many regular folk are being decieved.

[AZ Criminal JD]

7. Regular folks are being deceived because they believe in democracy.

Imagine that.

[dansolo]

11. Except our governmwent is not a democracy

Even the primaries are used to select delegates. The candidates are not directly chosen by the voters.

[mac2]

10. The party has allowed Caucus States which seems to be

a sore spot with Obama supporters. The whole thing of caucus and Super Delegates seems anti-democratic to me no matter who the candidate.

A regular primary election with voting by registered Democratic voters and their choice of delegates should be the norm.

[dcindian]

6. If the Clintons could throw away every single vote in America

to install her in office they would let there be no doubt about that. They have tried to pervert the entire system, and it is appalling to have someone who would so willingly throw away votes on the Democrat side.

America has said no to this person and yet she cannot hear, or she chooses not to listen. In my opinion there could be no one worse for president then a person of like that.

[SoCalDem]

8. And they did not care ONE BIT about ANY state that voted AFTER 2-5-08

not the delegates
not the voters
not the VOTES
none of it..nada..zilch..zippo

It was all going to be OVER by Feb 5..she was going to be the virtual nominee, since all the rest would drop out, and she would go back to DC, do the senator-presumptive winner, and all the voters after Feb 5 were nobodies to her..just more numbers added to a winning total..probably of numbers she had NO idea..nor cared..

She was going to be like mccain is now..just waiting around for the coronation..