Will of the People

by TexasDarlin, Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:16:03 PM EST

Let's examine the "will of the people" in selecting our 2008 Democratic nominee.  Many party leaders and superdelegates have emphasized its importance.

First, it should be noted that the DNC's decision to strip Florida and Michigan of its delegates made no mention of disregarding the popular votes from these two battleground states.  After all, how can you ignore 2.3 million citizens, including a record turnout in Florida, who insisted on casting ballots even though officials told them it was pointless? That would be un-American. (See more thoughts about Florida and Michigan below).

So...setting aside the matter of Florida and Michigan delegates --a matter to be reviewed by the RBC on May 31 -- let's take a look at the popular vote.

Following Hillary Clinton's historic 41-point win in West Virginia, in which she netted nearly 150,000 votes, the popular vote totals from Real Clear Politics (RCP) for the primaries are:

Total votes cast:  33,391,125
Clinton:  47.7% (HC leads by 29,471 votes)
Obama:  47.6%

Total votes cast, including estimates from the caucus states of IA, ME, WA, and NV: 33,949,071
Obama:  47.7% (BO leads by 80,751)
Clinton:  47.5%

Notes on the Popular Vote:
1. As stated above, there is no authority for disregarding raw votes from Florida and Michigan. Any claim that they should be excluded from popular vote totals is especially problematic given Obama's opposition to re-votes in both states, and the fact that he ran TV ads in Florida in violation of the pledge.  Also keep in mind that Obama voluntarily removed his name from the Michigan ballot, against the advice of some of his allies, for political gain in Iowa.  As Obama now heads to Florida and Michigan, presumably to campaign for general-election votes for the Democrats, it's increasingly ludicrous to cling to the position that these 2.3 million votes shouldn't count towards selecting his party's nominee.

2. The RCP estimate of popular votes that includes caucus states is skewed towards Obama given the undemocratic nature of caucuses.  There are now at least three examples -- Texas, Washington, and Nebraska -- where the candidates were virtually tied in primary elections but caucus results in the same states heavily favored Obama.  Two new myDD stories provide excellent analyses about this dynamic, here and here.

3. A blogger also points out that Clinton has now won the popular vote in 195 US Congressional Districts, compared to 187 for Obama.  Including Florida and Michigan, it would be 227 for Clinton and 195 for Obama.

A virtual tie:
By June 3rd, no matter how you slice it, this race will be a dead heat.

Clinton is likely to lead Obama (and McCain) among all votes cast in presidential primaries, even when including the skewed caucus results.  Obama will maintain his pledged delegate lead, but it will be narrower than it is now, possibly within 100.

Of nearly 20 million votes cast and among 4,000 or so delegates, they will be separated by a fraction on both metrics.

How Superdelegates will decide:
Now, Obama and his supporters rightly point out time and again that delegates, not popular votes, determine who wins the nomination.  True, but only if you get 2210 pledged delegates.  Since neither Clinton nor Obama will reach that number -- it's the responsibility of the automatic (or "super") delegates to vote at the convention.

You may disagree with the power and authority given to the superdelegates -- and the party could change its rules after this election -- but that's for the future. Currently there are no rules requiring the superdelegates to award the nomination to the leader of pledged delegates.

The purpose of the superdelegates is to ensure that the best general-election candidate, and best potential president, is nominated.  Any factor may be considered, including the "will of the people" as reflected in the popular vote. In fact, to overturn the peoples' choice based on the results of a complex delegate apportionment system (itself in need of reform) could backfire in November.

Cross posted at texasdarlin

TexasDarlin, all rights reserved
Not affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign




Tags: hillary clinton, obama, will of people, popular vote, delegates, superdelegates, convention, democratic nomination (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 142 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 12)

""The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery."

      --  Dave Barry


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:16:52 PM EST

Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 8)

Well said TD!


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:25:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (none / 0)

I thought we were all democrats here. Is a quote belittling the Dems really in the best tone?


by Tatan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:41:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 6)

wow, i can see from the comments already that you guys are in a fowl mood today.

have you no sense of humor?


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:44:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 1)

I just happen to think Democrats have demonstrated exceptionally good management skills.

I'm sorry you seem to think otherwise.


by Tatan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:54:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 6)

it was a joke.  do you know who dave barry is?  he's a humorist.  he's also a democrat.  from florida.  you know, F.L.O.R.I.D.A.  get it?


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:59:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (none / 0)

Yeah, I actually know Dave Barry. I have no problem with his humor. I own more than a few of his books. I just don't think that statement is either funny or true.


by Tatan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:03:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (none / 0)

Technically, he's a "humorist".


by Rationalisto on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:08:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, the Clintons haven't (1.50 / 2)

their management skills have been exceptionally poor.  So if you're a Clinton fan like alegre or SoCal Darlin', you might think that all Democrats suck at management.


by JJE on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:00:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (none / 0)

Well, whether we manage an organization well or not is one thing.  Whether we "manage" to get elected and re-elected in something else. With few exceptions, our party seems to run out of steam in general elections. The pattern and the classic schism--no matter what new label is given it--seems to be the same for about 40 years.  Since we have been slicing & dicing the prelim math so much to date, I'd like to see an analysis of past contested dem primaries during that period--delegate & popular vote split in the primary and the general with demographic voting patters and state breakdowns. That could prove a good basis for looking ahead to the likely electoral breakdown with demographics in the general election this year.


by christinep on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:43:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (none / 0)

Well, honesty is the best policy and In my opinion, the party screwed up the primary system.


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:37:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A Fowl Mood (2.00 / 1)

always brings out the turkeys. ;-)


by Blue Jean on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:54:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 3)

Well it seems that one of the campaigns had the management skills of celery. Oddly enough they are the same campaign that want rule changes, and overturned contests.

The well managed campaign, understood the rules, and want them followed.  They campaigned for Delegates, not popular vote totals.

So do we go with the people who want to cheat and overturn the rules to win?  (Reminds me of the Republicans)   Or the competent people who won within the rules.

I agree with you TexasDarlin it is time for a Change and to throw off the failed management of the past.   When did you become an Obama supporter TexasDarlin?


Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ~ Sun Tzu
by Tumult on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:27:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You need to make this argument to the supers (none / 0)

They are the ones that will decide this thing at this point, and their decision is the only thing the popular vote really impacts.  I am sure they are smart enough to count the significance of the FL and MI votes toward any electability argument, whether or not FL and MI are even seated yet.

Peace


by protothad on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:01:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 1)

It's the numbers, he said so himself.  


by anna shane on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:58:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama IS The Will of the People (2.00 / 1)

By June 3rd, no matter how you slice the magic mushrooms, this race will be a dead heat in your hallucinations.  


"we have the most radical president we have ever had, leading our country right now, and he is completely uneducable." - Seymour Hersh
by Lefty Coaster on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:54:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your Choice of Photos is a Freudian Slip (2.00 / 1)

Since you want the Soviet style Michigan Primary to count.


"we have the most radical president we have ever had, leading our country right now, and he is completely uneducable." - Seymour Hersh
by Lefty Coaster on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:01:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (none / 0)

Number of S-D's who have switched from Obama to Hillary: 0.


by Lawyerish on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:19:19 PM EST

Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 1)

Number of PD's(Pledged Delegates) who have switch from Obama to Hillary: 0

Number of PD's who have switched from Hillary to Obama: 1

(So far)


by Tatan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:42:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (none / 0)

The point being that this is nothing but a pipe dream.

I predict that not a single SD ever does end up switching.


by Lawyerish on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:48:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually (2.00 / 1)

Several SD's have switched... i believe 3 or 4 at this point. But it could be more.

They've all been in one direction.

From Hillary to Barack.

(so far)


by Tatan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:52:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (none / 0)

Naturally, I should have said 'not a single one switches from Obama to Clinton,' lol


by Lawyerish on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:15:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (2.00 / 1)

It's actually been 10 -- all from Hillary to Barack.


John McCain the flip-flopper...
by chinapaulo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:21:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (none / 0)

I believe it... I was sure it was atleast 3 or 4 from recent memory... but don't doubt there are more.


by Tatan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:48:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (none / 0)

The number of Super Delegates who endorsed Obama today: 5


"we have the most radical president we have ever had, leading our country right now, and he is completely uneducable." - Seymour Hersh
by Lefty Coaster on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:50:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I see you put a lot of work into this. (2.00 / 6)

Or at least copy/pasting it from Hillaryis44 or whatever site you get these things from.

I'd like to just point out that, while there's no rule about discounting the popular vote from Michigan and Florida, there's no rule to count the popular vote from any state.

Your bullshit metric is not applicable.  Stop trying to spread false information.

As for your assertion about caucuses, you are free to lead the fight to get the primary system changed to replace the caucus with a method of your choice; for this season, the system is set in stone and all the participants agreed to it.

Finally, in closing, the super (or "automatic") delegates don't care about whatever wacky metric you pulled out this week.  Stop suggesting that they do.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:21:46 PM EST

Re: I see you put a lot of work into this. (2.00 / 7)

thanks for the polite commentary.

first, I don't read hillaryis44.  i put this together all by myself (hard to imagine someone taking the time to do that, i know, but that's how passionate hillary supporters are).

second, you're right, there is no rule either way addressing the popular vote.  my argument is that it's a better measurement of the peoples will than anything else.

third, bullshit metric, false information, stop spreading....huh?

fourth, i disagree.  i think the superdelegates are quite interested in how the people vote.  if for no other reason that most of them are elected themselves so they understand this metric perhaps better than most and I've venture to say they don't consider it "wacky" whatever that means.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:43:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I see you put a lot of work into this. (2.00 / 2)

You're right. There is no rule involving the popular vote, just like in baseball, there is no rule involving shots from the foul line.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:51:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The stream of "automatics" to Obama... (2.00 / 3)

...seems to say that they do consider the metrics being constantly tossed at them less convincing than the pledged delegate argument.

I think that it is false to suggest that it's a valid metric to consider, considering that it disenfranchises the caucus states that don't keep track of that number.  However you might feel about caucuses, it's not the people in those states that draws your ire; it's your dissatisfaction with the practice itself (which hails back quite a long time).  

I'd like for you to admit that there's no accurate way of measuring the total popular vote of the contests this season and, if it's important to you, work to reform the process for 2012.  Including Michigan and Florida but discounting the four caucus states without vote totals stands in direct opposition to the principled stand you claim to be making.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:56:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Awww and I was giving you credit. (2.00 / 1)

Giving you credit for a snarky diary exposing how crazy the arguments of the Hillary supporters are.   And that quote in your first comment I would have sworn was directed at the management skills of the Clinton campaign.

You do know that Obama has never been opposed to a revote or seating the delegations, he just doesn't want it done in such a way that one candidate is favored over another.  It is Clinton that refuses to accept any kind of revote or seating of delegates that does not favor her.


Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ~ Sun Tzu
by Tumult on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:36:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I appreciate your hard work and enthusiasm (2.00 / 2)

even if I don't agree with all of your reasoning.  You have been tireless in your advocacy for your candidate, and as an Obama supporter I respect that regardless of who you support.  I hope you remain that energized going into November no matter who the nominee is.  We need people like you to defeat McCain and the Neocons.

And don't let the occasional trash-talker give you the wrong idea.  Most of us Obamabots are really rather nice when you get to know us.  ;)

Peace


by protothad on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:43:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How nice-some days I think no one... (2.00 / 2)

remembers how to disagree respectfully. You are a wonderful exception, especially on line.

I live with 3 Obama supporters, husband and 10 year old twins and we have lots of fun discussing politics. I think we so often need to demonize any and all opponents. It pays to remember that most people are just as convinvced they are right as you are that you are right. Given that, it's a difference of opinion not good versus evil.


berkshiretrueblue Commited to helping elect a Democrat as President "Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo" Ambroise Bierce
by berkshiretrueblue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:20:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks (2.00 / 1)

I think there is something about the web that allows many people to lose track of their civility and behave toward others in a way they never would face to face.   Kind of like how some people are totally different people when driving... its just too easy to not see that other car or blog post as having a thinking feeling human attached to it.

I love the Internet for its capacity to tie together far flung people in common cause, but it can also be a seductive form of escape from direct engagement with the world and other people, and thus an outlet for anti-social behavior.  I think we can see both aspects on display in the political blogs this primary season.

Peace


by protothad on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:20:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 1)

Total Delegates 1883 - 1717 Obama + 166
Super Delegates 285 - 272 Obama + 13
Pledged Delegates 1598 - 1445 Obama + 153
Popular Vote 49.3 - 47.5 Obama +1.8
Popular Vote (w/FL) 48.4 - 47.6 Obama +0.8
Nat'l RCP Average 49.5 - 42.3 Obama +7.2

realclearpolitics.com


"No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." -Hillary Clinton
by fugazi on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:22:24 PM EST

Every time you say this (2.00 / 2)

"given the undemocratic nature of caucuses"

I stop reading your diary.

Also, couldn't you find a photo of Americans voting as opposed to Europeans?


_____________
PUMA: Perverse Undemocratic McCain Adherents
by lizardbox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:24:02 PM EST

Re: Every time you say this (2.00 / 5)

Nothing says democracy like a picture of Russian peasants putting paper into a ballot box.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:32:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Medvedeediedev... ehv (2.00 / 2)


_____________
PUMA: Perverse Undemocratic McCain Adherents
by lizardbox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:37:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Every time you say this (none / 0)

That picture reminds me an awful lot of Michigan.


by Tatan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:56:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Every time you say this (2.00 / 9)

You know, bitter cold... and a couple of names missing from the ballot.


by Tatan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:58:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Every time you say this (2.00 / 7)

of course i could find pictures of americans voting, but i like this picture.  it shows the universality of the idea of democracy.  thanks for the feedback, though.

by the way, i strongly disagree with you about caucuses.  did you see the results of the nebraska primary?


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:46:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Every time you say this (2.00 / 1)

What does that have to do with anything?  Everyone knew that the presidential candidate vote had already happened.  

What is it with you guys and flailing about for any evidence you can find that supports your argument in any way, regardless of the validity of the idea?  And then, you can't even be argued around, b/c you simply don't give a damn about facts.


by Lawyerish on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:49:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's funny because (2.00 / 4)

Russia exemplifies exactly what's wrong about democracy.

The soviet union held fake elections where no checks or balances were obvious - just a straight up and down vote.

And now Medvedev is President while Vladimir Putin takes power as Prime Minister.

What next? Pictures of Adolf Hitler winning hundreds of seats in the Reichstag?


Commissar: Canadian Gal; Proletariat Policemen: ragekage, Lord Hadrian. "For the Proletariat!"
by Lord Hadrian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:50:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's funny because (2.00 / 3)

Actually, the photo is from Belarus.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:24:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's funny because (2.00 / 2)

Ah, some of my people immigrated from Minsk.  Too many pogroms!

And what of their government today?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus#Pol itics
Lukashenko won the election with 80% of the vote, but the OSCE and other organizations called the election unfair.

Lukashenko has described himself as having an "authoritarian ruling style". Western countries have described Belarus under Lukashenko as a dictatorship. The Council of Europe has barred Belarus from membership since 1997 for undemocratic voting and election irregularities in the November 1996 constitutional referendum and parliament by-elections. The Belarusian government is also criticized for human rights violations and its actions against non-governmental organizations, independent journalists, national minorities, and opposition politicians.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:33:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's funny because (none / 0)

Again, see my comment downthread...use of the picture was not an endorsement of belarus. I just like the picture.  You must have a lot of free time on your hands, lol.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:39:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Every time you say this (2.00 / 5)

What universe do you live in where a vote in which it is universally known that the results have absolutely no importance is equal to a vote in which it is universally known that the results are very important?

Reality: Hillary had an exceedingly poor strategy. The game involves caucuses, whether they are a good thing or not. A good candidate will include them in their strategy.

It's like losing a basketball game because your opponent hit decisive three pointers and then crying about how three pointers shouldn't count.

Why was Hillary's strategy so bad? And whose fault is if that it was so poor?


by PSUdan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:51:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Every time you say this (none / 0)

It's Hillary's fault her strategy was poor.  She ran a poor campaign, and lost fair and square.  I guess surrounding yourself with loyalists doesn't really pay off that well huh?  Of course, extrapolating how she would run the country based on how she ran her campaign doesn't get brought up in these Clintonista-fantasy diaries.
 
"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:01:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uncommitted SD's (2.00 / 1)

Here's a list of uncommitted SD's.  

Everyone email them to let them know Hillary is ahead in the popular vote.  I bet they've never heard this spin before.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:24:17 PM EST

stop.. (2.00 / 1)

You just made me laugh....hard


"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody
by nextgen on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:11:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 3)

In a delegate race the "Will of the People" is reflected in the delegate count...not popular votes.

You're like...trying to call the winner of a baseball game the team with more hits instead of runs scored.

Popular votes was never the game being played....sorry.


by JoeCoaster on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:24:36 PM EST

Brilliant! (none / 0)

That is the perfect way of putting it.  Also remember one thing as well.  We don't elect a president by popular vote either.  (Remember 2000) So this is doubly a false metric


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:23:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There's a reason the DNC didn't mention pop vote (2.00 / 2)

We don't USE popular vote to select our nominee. We use delegates.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:24:47 PM EST

Um, no we don't (2.00 / 4)

We use super delegates actually, and they've never been in this position before. No presidential candidate under the present system has ever been nominated without a majority of pledged delegates AND a majority of popular votes, so the case for each is equally strong, and unprecedented.


by phoenixdreamz on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:33:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um, no we don't (2.00 / 2)

The case for each is not equally strong.

The DNC's rules for picking a nominee refer to delegates. They say nothing about popular vote.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:36:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The DNC's rules (2.00 / 2)

specifically state that super delegates are free to vote for whomever they please.


by phoenixdreamz on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:40:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The DNC's rules (2.00 / 1)

Yep. But my comment was a reply to a completely different point.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:43:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't get this argument (2.00 / 2)

The superdelegates have been pretty obvious in the metric they're going to use.

116 Superdelegates to the 16.5 Senator Clinton has picked up since February 5th showcase that the superdelegates believe the will of the people is best carried by the pledged delegate totals and nothing else.


Commissar: Canadian Gal; Proletariat Policemen: ragekage, Lord Hadrian. "For the Proletariat!"
by Lord Hadrian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:44:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't get this argument (2.00 / 3)

Of course you don't, because you support Obama. If the shoe were on the other foot, that would open your eyes quick enough ;)


by phoenixdreamz on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:49:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I understand Senator Clinton's argument (2.00 / 3)

and the argument of her supporters. But I'm not criticizing it.

Her argument since March has been that no one can reach 2025 without the superdelegates and they have decided that.

Has she decided now that superdelegates should now strictly decide by popular vote?

Otherwise why are we even discussing it; nothing we say will effect what the superdelegates will do and they've en masse chosen the metric by which they will push one candidate over the 2025 mark.


Commissar: Canadian Gal; Proletariat Policemen: ragekage, Lord Hadrian. "For the Proletariat!"
by Lord Hadrian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:52:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

2 points (2.00 / 0)

1. Because the issue of Florida & Michigan will be resolved before the convention, the total to win the nomination will be substantially higher than 2025.

2. We are discussing it because I pointed out earlier upthread that all previous candidates under our current system have accumulated a majority of both pledged delegates AND popular votes, throwing this election cycle's metric, and in fact our whole system of choosing a candidate, into question.


by phoenixdreamz on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:00:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2 points (2.00 / 2)

1) I don't discuss things that haven't happened. When it happens, we'll discuss it. Until then, it's 2025 and the vote totals of Michigan and Florida are irrelevant to any discussion happening today.

2) That would be true - except that was already resolved in 1824 when the first such incident occurred:

Popular vote     Adams: 113,122     Jackson: 151,271

In addition, no candidate had a majority of the electoral votes either and so the House of Representatives decided the election. It was known as a "constitutional crisis" at the time but it was resolved.

The verdict? If no one has a plurality, it goes to the House of Representatives. And popular vote is irrelevant, since Andrew Jackson obviously carried the popular vote by an insane percentage.

Electoral votes matter; delegates matter; popular vote does not.

This happened three other times, most recently, 2000.

A heartbreaker but one in which the reasons for losing were less to do with the other side and more to do with our side not campaigning enough in New Hampshire, which had 4 easy to win electoral votes that would have attained us the Presidency.

Popular vote only matters insofar as to achieve electoral votes. And even then, faithless electors can vote for someone else, as evidenced numerous times, even in the recent 2004 election.


Commissar: Canadian Gal; Proletariat Policemen: ragekage, Lord Hadrian. "For the Proletariat!"
by Lord Hadrian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:06:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To extrapolate further (2.00 / 2)

Primaries and nominees have been decided numerous times not on the basis of popular vote but on delegates.

You can go all the way back to when Woodrow Wilson didn't even campaign but showed up at the convention and won the delegates and went onto win the Presidency.

Delegates decide it - today it's more democratic in a sense but this is not a one person, one vote society.

It hasn't been; it may trend that way but it's actually one of our greatest checks on power.


Commissar: Canadian Gal; Proletariat Policemen: ragekage, Lord Hadrian. "For the Proletariat!"
by Lord Hadrian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:08:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Alrighty but recall, (none / 0)

we are discussing the Democratic system of selecting a presidential candidate via the super delegate system, who under DLC rules are people free to vote for whomever they choose, regardless of pledged delegates or popular votes, so the whole debate is rather philosophical anyways.


by phoenixdreamz on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:21:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um, no we don't (2.00 / 1)

So are you advocating that we eliminate caucuses and superdelegates, and use the popular vote to determine our nominee in the next Democratic primary?  Also, how do you determine who is allowed to participate (open registration, closed primary, etc.) in each primary?

At the end of the day, advocating the number of delegates won and the popular vote are equal in weight is like advocating points scored and total yards gained are of equal weight in determining the winner of a football game.  Obviously, if total yards were equal in weight to points scored, teams might think differently about what to do on fourth down (and the others).  Similarly, if the popular vote and number of delegates are equal in weight, candidates would allocate their resources (time and money) differently.  So delegates and popular vote aren't equal.


by Brad G on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:36:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

After this election, (none / 0)

I'm about ready to advocate we adopt the Republican winner-take-all system. It's simplicity and basic fairness sure beats the complicated mess, not to mention public embarassment, ours generates. The system we currently employ is in need of a serious tweaking and tuneup at the very least, IMO.


by phoenixdreamz on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:48:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: After this election, (2.00 / 2)

I actually hate that model, and I really wish we made a serious effort of changing the winner-take-all system used in the general election.  It's absolutely ridiculous that in a hard fought state, where you might win by 100 votes out of over 1,000,000 cast, that one candidate recieves either all the delegates or all the electoral votes.


by shalca on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:03:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: After this election, (2.00 / 1)

Actually we are moving towards that goal.  The winner take all system will meet it's demise with legislation currently in the works.  I can't remember where I saw it (it is probably burried somewhere at the orange satan), but recently IL signed into law a way to circumvent and eliminate the effectiveness of the electoral college.

To be sure IL is just the third state to adopt this measure, but once states that have 270 electoral votes or more ratify this law (which must be identical in each state) the electoral college is done.

This is how it works:

All states that agree and sign the measure will award their entire delegation of electoral votes to the popular vote winner (I think of the states involved, but perhaps overall).  The result is that a block of 270 votes (or enough to elect the next president regardless of what any of the other states do) will go to the popular vote winner.  The electoral college will vote, but the vote will be tied to the popular vote.

This law will take effect if and only if there are enough electoral votes in the block to select the next president (270 EV).  So the law will esentially lie dormant until enough states pass it, then it will be popular vote all the way.

No messy constitutional amendment, no 2/3 support from all states and such silliness.  Just laws passed by legislatures in the states that agree.  After enough states sign on, the rest will jump on board since there will nt be any advantage to holding out any longer.

Anyhow, that's how I read it..  You can look it up, but as I said I can't remember where I saw it.  I know it passed in IL and two other states.


by Why Not on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:30:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Basic fairness?" (2.00 / 2)

McCain got 33% of the vote in Missouri and 100% of the delegates. How is that even remotely fair?


by Angry White Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:33:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: After this election, (2.00 / 1)

When you speak about basic fairness in regards to a winner-take-all system, you lose all credibility.

Winner-take-all is the most unfair system ever devised.


by Aris Katsaris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:03:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: After this election, (2.00 / 2)

As many have written, winner-take-all works only when solely two people are in the race.  Obviously the loser of a 58-42 blowout shouldn't be rewarded with 40-45 percent of the delegates.  That's proportional allocation's weakness.

What is far worse is having winner-take-all when more than two candidates are in the race.  This allows the winner of a close race (see GOP MO, FL, GA, SC primaries) to get an underwhelming percentage of the vote (i.e., 32% in MO), and win an undeserving and overwhelming majority (75-100 percent) of the delegates.  For a party that values egalitarianism, winner-take-all primaries do not fulfill those core values.


by Brad G on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:11:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thankyou for the thoughtful (2.00 / 1)

and informative response. I see your point. Our system does need some tweaking then. Back to the drawing board :)


by phoenixdreamz on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:47:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You know, I'm thinking that's the reason (none / 0)

That so many just don't participate in elections. Nothing like knowing your vote is irrelevant to the powers that be, that only the "elite" delegates are actually doing the voting that matters, to turn people off.

Like the Electoral College. What a slap in the face of the one person one vote idea.

I see that so many in the Democratic party are just fine with that, along with completely denying the vote to millions in Michigan and Florida. Same with the Repubs. No wonder our country is in such a mess for the working people. They are ignored and used by the elite.


by splashy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:33:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 1)

Why should the American citizens who boted "Uncommitted" in Michigan be disenfranchised?


Voting for John McCain is not God bless America.
by SFValues on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:25:05 PM EST

Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 1)

Because they broke the rules.  Period.

If we don't sanction FL and MI, then OH, PA, and every other state will move up its primary.  We'll be lucky if the first primary begins after Halloween 2011.

Also, by having IA and NH go first, deep-pocketed candidates are forced to meet the voters.  With large states going first, money and television dominate, and lesser-known, underfinanced candidates such as Chris Dodd, Mike Huckabee, and Joe Biden have even less a shot of getting the nomination.  I don't want the Democratic Party to be denied of a great nominee because he or she doesn't have the money to compete.


by Brad G on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:25:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 1)

I think SFValues kind of agrees with you.  Hillary denied a 60-50 split of delegates in her favor.  She wants all of the delegates and for Obama to get none because his name wasn't on the ballot.  That would disenfranchise all those who voted uncommitted.  I also feel it disenfranchises all of those who stayed home because they were told that their vote would not count.

Similarly, in Florida, there was a property tax issue on the ballot that turned out property owners.  It particularly disenfranchised those who do not own property and were told the primary vote didn't count and decided to stay home.  In Florida this would dispraportionately effect lower income voters.


by shalca on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:06:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 2)

In 1968, Ronald Reagan won the popular vote in the Republican primaries when Richard Nixon won the nomination. The popular vote is not the metric that is used to determine the nominee of a political party. Plain, and simple. It is even more ridiculous to select based on a popular vote calculation that includes two states that held unsanctioned contests, which was agreed to by all parties, and in which no candidates campaigned.

I also find it troubling that you extol the great aspects of true democracy, which means that the rules should not be followed if it stops the counting of votes in Michigan and Florida. Then you say that superdelegates, the most undemocratic part of the nomination process, should overturn the popular decision of the elected delegates because the rules allow them to do so. That's a large logical disconnect, which makes this a pretty flimsy argument.    


by irish09 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:30:32 PM EST

Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 2)

There are many close contests. For example, many, many baseball games this season will be decided by one run.  And, in a higher scoring sport, basketball, games are also decided sometimes by one run.

But they are all games where there were ruled agreed upon ahead of time. And whoever is ahead at the end of the games, wins that game.

Being close at the end does not allow one to change the rules in order to win anymore than being far from the winner at the end.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:31:00 PM EST

Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 1)

oops...basketball...by one point.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:32:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 5)

I forgot where I read this, and I'm paraphrasing, but...

If I knew the basketball game was going to be scored on touchdowns instead of baskets, I'd have tried to score more touchdowns.  And if Obama knew the popular vote was the metric instead of delegates, he would have run a different campaign.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:31:00 PM EST

Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 1)

Amazing to me how infrequently this argument is used, even by Obama supports (of which I am one).

Great comment!


by sasatlanta on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:25:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 2)

Hey, TD, how do you like NARAL Pro-Choice America endorsing Obama today?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:33:25 PM EST

As I said in my diary: (2.00 / 1)

While Caucuses Violate the Spirit: the will of the people is the biggest falsity every propagated.

This country isn't a democracy, it isn't decided by popular vote, one person isn't entitled to one vote and it likely won't be.

Mob rule is the worst method by which to run a government: see Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and the hundreds of socialist/communist countries where there are no checks and balances.

The Electoral College is one of the biggest checks on the people of America. Popular vote can be right sometimes (Al Gore) but can be wrong other times (Adolf Hitler).

The Electoral Votes decide the election - not popular vote.

And yes, delegates decide the nomination; not the will of the people.

The will of the people are represented in delegates, pretty much - and no amount of complaining changes that.

Again. America isn't a democracy. It was designed by people who didn't trust the people (Hamilton) and rightfully so.

That's my personal opinion; it's my understanding that Senator Obama does believe in the will of the people and using sanctioned contests, he carries the will of the people in both popular vote and delegate count.

I'm unaware of what unsanctioned contests do to that - I've heard various scenarios. I don't speculate on what isn't.

If that changes sometime at the end of May, we'll discuss it then.

Until then, the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Party don't recognize unsanctioned contests and they aren't reflected in any vote total or delegate total.

So the diary is wrong in that respect.


Commissar: Canadian Gal; Proletariat Policemen: ragekage, Lord Hadrian. "For the Proletariat!"
by Lord Hadrian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:36:31 PM EST

Re: As I said in my diary: (2.00 / 1)

To extrapolate further, Maine and Nebraska aren't winner-take-all states in the Electoral College, with specific congressional districts being able to be won and states having been frequently prior to the 1950s.

And Electors aren't bound by anything to cast their votes for the President the people chose. This was evidenced in 2000 and 2004 with faithless electors (what they're called).

Again. This is not a democracy; it is not a mob rule government and the popular vote does not decide anything.

And it should not. Mob rule and popular vote more often lead to dictatorships than our government has ever done so.

So I'll stick with what works, thank you very much.


Commissar: Canadian Gal; Proletariat Policemen: ragekage, Lord Hadrian. "For the Proletariat!"
by Lord Hadrian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:39:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As I said in my diary: (none / 0)

So, tell me, what is the point of voting if that is the case? Seems to me there is no point, and all this is an exercise in futility because the elitists are going to decide everything anyway.

No wonder so many don't bother. Why should they? It's a wealthy person's game, not the average people. What a scam.


by splashy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:33:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting (2.00 / 3)

because all of those people who are now dismissing HRC's argument on "will of the people" are themselves, the ones who violated the will of the people in their own state. Kennedy, Kerry, Patrick Kennedy, Richardson...each one of their states voted clinton by double digits (MAss--O lost by 15%).

This is what makes me think that its not about Obama, it is about THEM, and their legacy.  Once again, the politics of personality.

Bravo and well said!


by 4justice on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:39:07 PM EST

If you want to do that (2.00 / 3)

Then you do realize Senator Clinton would be losing by an even larger margin?

If Super Delegates followed the will of their states, then Senator Obama would net roughly +70 more superdelegates just from the superdelegates who've pledged.

You can't cherrypick support. People on both sides have voted against the will of the people.

The will of the people is the biggest bs story every sold in this country. There is no will of the people. It's a very complex system designed to place a check on American people and the Democratic National Committee utilizes a watered down version to simulate what will eventually happen in November.

Contests aren't decided by votes. They're decided by Electoral Votes.

And nominees aren't decided by big states, small states, blue states, red states - they're decided by delegates.


Commissar: Canadian Gal; Proletariat Policemen: ragekage, Lord Hadrian. "For the Proletariat!"
by Lord Hadrian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:43:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you want to do that (2.00 / 3)

I mean, really.

The US Senate is made up of two Senators from each state, no matter how big or small.  Many more voters selected the senators from CA compared to the senators from WV.  

And while House seats are based on roughly the same number of people, because of gerrymandering, there is usually a measurable discrepancy between the proportion of votes cast for each party and the proportion of seats won by each party.

The US does not operate based on popular vote -- and neither does any actually existing democracy.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:47:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you want to do that (none / 0)

I keep using the word amazing, but it is amazing to me how often people focus on a little detail and forget the big picture.  Nice comment to remind us all!


by sasatlanta on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:27:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you want to do that (none / 0)

So, basically what y'all are saying is that it is really irrelevant for us to vote.

No wonder so many opt out, knowing that it really doesn't make any difference what they do. It's about elitists running the show. It's not apathy, it's seeing reality.

It's also no wonder the working people get screwed so much, and we have such a horrible health care non-system, among other things. This is how we end up with so much corporate and wealthy people welfare, while denigrating those that really NEED help for being so "unworthy" because they are poor so therefore MUST be immoral, prejudiced and just plain lower beings.

What a world we live in.


by splashy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:40:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting (2.00 / 1)

Incorrect, Senator Clinton just barely eeked out a victory in Bill Richardson's New Mexico's caucuses. I suppose that this one caucus was more representative of the will of the people than any that Obama won.

Check your facts before you complain about the politics of personality.  


by irish09 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:03:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As someone who supports the idea (2.00 / 5)

of counting votes from a race where only one candidate was on the ballot, I find your use of Russo-Soviet voting scenes particularly amusing.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:51:54 PM EST

Wow. I sort of referenced (2.00 / 2)

that above but I hadn't picked up on that irony of it.

But yeah, there were lots of ballots where only Medvedev was on it. It's quite amazing the irony of the post and the picture.

Those are the sorts of things that make you start believing in Karma, lol. ^_^.


Commissar: Canadian Gal; Proletariat Policemen: ragekage, Lord Hadrian. "For the Proletariat!"
by Lord Hadrian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:54:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As someone who supports the idea (2.00 / 1)

Soon she will be showing pictures of North Koreans voting.


by PSUdan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:55:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

About North Korea (none / 0)

A bit off-topic, but I just saw this guy's recollection of his visit with his kids to North Korea: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/ id/244
by goshzilla on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:25:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (none / 0)

There's also no authority for including votes from contests that were declared not to count ahead of time.  Vote totals in those states simply are not compelling as the "will of the people."  In Michigan, 40% voted for "uncommitted," (i.e., "Not Clinton") - how do you propose to represent their will (because it certainly isn't represented by allocating 0 votes to Obama, regardless of his taking his name off the ballot)?  How about the will of those who voted in the Republican primary or sat out?  

In any event, counting the popular vote, when the primary process was never designed to do that, merely punishes the caucus states and gets you no closer to answering the question of which candidate is more popular.  No candidate heading into the primaries believed that the popular vote would be the metric by which victory would be judged.  You're simply arguing for, in effect, a retroactive rule change, a rule change that doesn't even resolve the question of which candidate best reflects the true will of the people.  All it would do is give you a number divorced from meaning.  


by rfahey22 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:57:33 PM EST

Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 3)

there is no authority for disregarding raw votes from Florida and Michigan.
In fact, the truth is to the contrary.  There is no authority for counting the popular vote at all.  The primaries and caucuses thus far are nothing more than a delegate selection process under the rules of the respective parties.  Under the DNC rules, delegates are selected according to whatever metric established by the state parties so long as those delegates are selected within DNC rules.  The Democratic nominee will be selected based on those same rules.  While a scenario is theoretically possible wherein the popular vote may be considered; it is, at present, completely meaningless under the governing authority.
Obama will maintain his pledged delegate lead, but it will be narrower than it is now, possibly within 100.

Of nearly 20 million votes cast and among 4,000 or so delegates, they will be separated by a fraction on both metrics.

So when, after all of the voting is complete; and one candidate is ahead by the only metric specified by the rules, do we select the candidate who won the most delegates or the one that got the fewest?
Now, Obama and his supporters rightly point out time and again that delegates, not popular votes, determine who wins the nomination.  True, but only if you get 2210 pledged delegates.
That's a question that Dean has said will be resolved later this month; but to state here that the goalposts have moved to 2210 is incorrect.  At this time, FL and MI do not count, and their totals can not be included if accuracy is desired.   Speculation is futile, but I suspect the actual "goalposts" will be set well short of that 2210 number.  We'll see.

As for the popular vote totals, I'd posit that IF the FL & MI results are modified in any way by the DNC, that will necessarily negate the popular vote totals in those states, essentially acknowledging and reinforcing the long held assertion that these elections did not count; because if the DNC apportions delegates based on anything other than those votes, then they didn't count.  But again, that remains to be seen.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:58:56 PM EST

Re: Will of the People (none / 0)

Pfft nothing to see here...another TD turd.  I will keep reading nonetheless for the unintentional humore it brings me.  Keep up the "good" work.


Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!
by RockvilleLiberal2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:06:58 PM EST

Re: Will of the People (none / 0)

Please don't call the diarist a "turd." I think the argument she put forward is specious at best, but we should all respect each other.


by goshzilla on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:28:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

More crying about the rules. (2.00 / 2)

Those "undemocratic caucuses" are part of the rules.  You can whine, but you have to play the game by the rules, or my son would call you a cheater.

Just as the fudged numbers you present for the popular vote are not part of the rules.  We're competing for delegates.

I'm sorry the numbers are bad, but Senator Clinton must play by the accepted rules, not flout them.


by McNasty on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:07:48 PM EST

Re: More crying about the rules. (none / 0)

Exactly.  Not only did she agree to the rules ahead of time, she had the power to change them if she wished.  You don't think that the most powerful couple in the Democratic party could have gotten a discussion going within the DNC regarding primary election reform?  Hell, 2 of her campaign managers were on the Rules committee.

This ridiculous "what if" scenario game is getting more and more counterproductive by the day.  Hillary knew the rules ahead of time.  Hillary agreed to the rules ahead of time.  She signed a pledge agreeing to said rules.  She lost fair and square by said rules.  Quit yer' bitching.


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:54:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you don't include MI and FL in your pop.. vote (2.00 / 1)

metric than you Can't use the 2210 number.  Can't have it both ways.

Of course, you already know, don't you, that to include the Stalinesque MI and FL results in any pop. vote counts right now seriously damages your credibility, so you don't include those in your pop. vote count but then you try to use the 2210 number.

This is all not taking into account how thin all these "pop. vote" arguments are anyway.  How could anyone ever agree on Whose
pop. vote estimations to use?  We will never know how many human beings participated in the caucuses and you'll never prove to anyone that they are "undemocratic" because that's a matter of opinion.  And, I'm not talking about the supers' opinions on the matter, I'm talking about the voters.  WE will never agree on these matters, which means either way, using this metric would result in a divided base, not something ANY supers want.

And, all that being said, here's the ultimate reason why none of this matters:  If it looks like Obama has been denied the nomination by any reason that's questionable in ANY way, you are going to have riots in November, a completely deflated AA/youth base and a lost election in November.

Just my opinion


McCain does Not support the troops
by hope monger on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:10:00 PM EST

Re: If you don't include MI and FL in your pop.. v (2.00 / 1)

Agreed, what really matters is the appearance to the electorate. Since there is no tenable way to assess the "popular vote" that's not pure gibberish, arbitrarily picking one that favors HRC in order to overturn the seated delegate count, the only fair way to assess the "will of the people" would be disastrous for the party. The SD's hands are tied by the will of the people. Hopefully, HRC will stay in the race just in case Obama wakes up in a room full of 12 year old prostitutes and the press. So long as she stops being a distraction and stops attacking the credibility of the electoral process she personally helped shape.


by luckymortal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:18:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 5)

TD, do you see it as a problem that some states had caucuses and others closed primaries and others open primaries? Because anyone interested in estimating the "will of the people" mathematically would say that the three can't be added together without a system of rules to provide a common denominator. By the rules of the party, that HRC agreed to, that's the seated delegates. So according to our system, and elementary mathematics, the seated delegates race is the only metric for accurately determining the will of the people. Other's would say that your method unfairly amplifies the votes of voters in large states with open primaries, far far in addition to their relative population. That's another reason for the rules that our party agreed to. Is that a problem to you?


by luckymortal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:11:57 PM EST

Re: Will of the People (2.00 / 1)

Because anyone interested in estimating the "will of the people" mathematically would say that the three can't be added together without a system of rules to provide a common denominator.

Bingo!  We have a winner.  Basic math: you can't sum unlike terms without expressing those terms in some common term.


John McCain the flip-flopper...
by chinapaulo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:30:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Would it be possible for you to just accept what (