2,100,000 people voted in the Ohio Dem Primary - 8000 voted in Wyoming Dem Caucus

[ruggerson]

Ohio awarded 141 delegates.

Wyoming awarded 12 delegates.

Proportionally every 15,000 voters in OH get 1 delegate.

Proportionally every 666 voters in Wyoming get 1 delegate.


Does this not give far more influence statistically to the Wyoming voter than the Ohio voter?

Why is the Democratic party so incredibly screwed up?

(note: this is neither pro Clinton nor anti Obama. Nor is it bashing small states. They should have their numeric representation. Just not more clout than the voters who live in big states.)

http://content.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/results-all.aspx

[ossman]

1. Waaa! Waaa!

[Bluebear]

70. Is that supposed to have some kind of relevance?

[BzaDem]

2. Exactly. And proportionally every 25,000 voters in TX get 1 delegate.

[ruggerson]

4. the system is totally fucked up

why should Rhode Island and Vermont and Wyoming voters have MORE proportional representation than NY, CA, IL and TX?

[theHandpuppet]

8. Wow -- that's really screwed up

Who determines how many delegates area apportioned to each state? As it stands it would seem the more populous states are getting the shaft.

[JVS]

64. Damn. Obama should be getting 50 times as many delegates out of Texas as he's getting now!

[saltpoint]

3. Wow. Big numbers. Juicy turnout for the blue team.

We're comin' after ya, Republicans. Soon and fast.

[FARAFIELD]

5. who gives a shit

Why did 537 people get to make up the minds for all the people that voted for GORE, lifes not fair. Under your numericall assumption Wyoming (the LEAST populated state) would get zero delegates because not even 15K voted. Give wyoming some credit the most popular politician is a DEM, let them start somewhere.

[anonymous171]

19. I agree. The system was designed to attempt to give each state equal representation.

Otherwise candidates would only campaign in CA, TX, OH, and NY.

[ruggerson]

54. How is giving some small states 25 times more proportional representation

than big states fair or equal?

[TheDoorbellRang]

86. I do agree with you, ruggerson

Even though I'm for Obama, I too am curious about the disproportionate representation here, and would like to hear the rationale (if there is one) behind it.

I think before this particular primary season, I've never paid much attention to how different states decided on their candidates. Now each contest is getting 1000X more scrutiny, and those of us comfortable with our own home state's election process are amazed at the peculiar methods espoused in other states. I don't see it changing too much, though. For every contest where we see a thread ranting, "I can't believe they have a caucus/open primary/closed primary/ two-step/etc/etc," someone from that state jumps in and says, "We've always done it this way. We understand it just fine, so butt out!" I wonder if there will be some voices calling for an overhaul of this process after we have our nominee, but I'd venture to say it'll be everyone pointing a finger at any state's modus operandi but their own.

On the other hand, it does make it more of a vetting process for the candidates -- a game of wits with 50 variations in strategy required to win.

[Selatius]

132. Disparity between small states and large states is encoded into the very Constitution itself.

The Constitution would have failed if concessions were not given to small states. One of the compromises was the invention of the US Senate where a small state gets two seats, the same as any other larger state. The Electoral College today has a bias in favor of small states as well. It would make sense that the same disparities are encoded into party primaries and caucuses. Again, small states would demand concessions from larger states in terms of primaries and not just national representation. Either that, or they break the contract signed 200+ years ago.

As a result, the current balance of power we all know is achieved. Personally, if we were given a do-over for the last 200 years, I think we would've been better off as multiple nations instead of simply one nation. It would less likely lead to a situation where backward thinking folks could hold more progressive folks hostage simply because the backward folks live in an area that gives them disproportionate representation.

[Bill McBlueState]

167. exactly

See my post 166 for some numbers to back this up.

[tekisui]

We are a nation of states.

That is what it comes down to. States have rights.

[JoFerret]

144. Inherently undemocratic

Unless we see states as citizens.

(Maybe we should just leave it to the big corporations, super rich thieves and Goldman Sachs.)

[Slagathor]

160. The country isn't a democracy, it's a republic

Why doesn't anyone know anything about US politics? It's sort of embarrassing.

[KittyWampus]

6. keep insulting democrats in red/purple states. Their super delegates will NEVER support Hillary

at the Convention.

[ruggerson]

15. so you think small state voters deserve MORE proportional representation than big state voters?

I don't know how anyone can defend that.

[dbonds]

46. Ever hear of the US Senate?

[ruggerson]

55. ever hear of the US house?

[dbonds]

63. That my point, you were supposed to connect the dots.

The Senate is not proportional to population. You asked how anyone could defend that - well the founding fathers did. Some also thought there should be a proportional body so the compromise was to have 1 of each type of animal. It isn't that one idea is better than the other, it is something you have to balance. Same concepts apply to state delegates.

[Omega3]

21. yeah, they read DU all the time

[Major Hogwash]

52. We sure as hell do.

What is the land area size of Rhode Island?

What is the land area size of Wyoming?

Every time I read how less populated states like Wyoming shouldn't have any impact, I throw up.

Not all Americans live on the coast.

[ruggerson]

56. No one said you should have no impact

do you think it's democratic that you get 25 times the impact that the Ohio voter gets?

[Major Hogwash]

76. I think Howard Dean is a fucking genius for bringing the 50 state strategy back to the Dem party.

The people that live in the so-called "fly over states" have been ignored for 8 years by the national Democratic party.

Until 2000, states located in the Western and Central areas of the United States weren't referred to as "fly over states".

I would give Howard Dean a big hug if I could, for caring about ALL Americans - not just those in delegate rich states.

There are many voices in these states located in the Western and Central parts of the US that have not been heard for years by the national Democratic party.

The West should not be ignored by the Democrats.

If you have never been to Yellowstone National Park, then you should come out here and learn why it was the first National park in the United States.

There is a lot of value of a state like Wyoming for the United States.
There are a gazillion reasons for Wyoming to have 12 delegates.

If you don't like the system, this isn't the time to start bitching about it.
Get involved and change it from within.
But now is not the time to start complaining about perceived problems with the system.

The Iraq War is raging and Hillary doesn't give a damn.
How many Republicans do you think crossed over to vote in this caucus for her?
I'll tell ya right now - none!

The Iraq War is the Numero Uno issue in this campaign.

That's why she lost in Wyoming.
That's why she lost in Idaho.
That's why she lost in Utah.
That's why she lost in Washington.
That's why she lost in Colorado.
That's why she will lose in Oregon.
That's why she will lose in Montana.

The Great Northwest has spoken loud and clear - we want change, we want Obama, and we wamt out of Iraq.

[ruggerson]

87. Kudos

but none of that bears any passing resemblance to the discussion at hand.

The OP is about what a completely irrational presidential nominating process the Democrats have created for themselves.

And you didn't answer my question.

Do you think it's appropriate that a Wyoming Democrat has 25 times more say in the nominating process than an Ohio Democrat?

[Major Hogwash]

92. Was there a caucus or a primary that Hillary lost today, ruggerson?

Is that really what your complaint is?
Because it's really lame to complain about the rulez of the game this far into it.

[ruggerson]

103. Read the disclaimer in the OP

this isn't about Obama vs Hillary. This is about fixing our system for future elections. Now if you're done misrepresenting what I wrote, answer my question, which you've avoided for half an hour.

Is it democratic for a Wyoming democrat to have 25 times the influence on the nominating process than a Ohio democrat?

[Major Hogwash]

128. Where were you in 2005 when the system was last revamped?

Geezus, if the whining isn't loud enough from the Hillary losers already!

If you don't like Dean, e-mail him.
I'm sure he'll put it in his stack of "I hate you Howard Dean" e-mails.
Probably at the bottom.
Because they only represent 1 in 11,768 e-mails from Democrats!

[joshcryer]

141. I personally campaigned for election reform in 2000.

I gave up because the system is stacked against the individual and it is for the status quo. I may try again this time around but it's unlikely to change.

Revamping the system to be winner take all, direct runoff democracy just isn't happening. It would destroy the status quo.

[ruggerson]

163. I understand

after wasting far too much time with you, that you offer only off point ad hom and can't answer a simple question. It's only very intellectually dishonest people who routinely behave this way.

[RaleighNCDUer]

120. You're suggesting that Ohio should have 3300 delegates?

Are you serious?

[ruggerson]

122. I'm suggesting the entire process be revamped for next time

so that it is more equitable.

In line with the democratic principle of one man/one vote.

Do you think it's right that a Wyoming Democrat's vote carries 25 times the weight of a Ohio Democrat's vote?

[RaleighNCDUer]

125. Do YOU think it right that all of Wyoming should have only one

delegate?

[Bill McBlueState]

168. nobody wants to answer ruggerson's question

"Do you think it's right that a Wyoming Democrat's vote carries 25 times the weight of a Ohio Democrat's vote?"

[ruggerson]

171. I'm glad you noticed that

[Andromeda]

135. Don't make stupid assumptions

that have no basis in fact. You don't KNOW anything for a fact.

[Lucinda]

7. We need to work on this. Thanks for posting it!

K&R

[MadBadger]

9. What would you suggest they do different in 2012?

[TheDonkey]

18. bus in more people? Maybe from Ohio?

[joshcryer]

26. What I've been suggesting since 2000. Direct runoff democracy. Winner take all.

Simple majority rules. Implement it however you like.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

31. exactly!

[joshcryer]

40. Look in the earliest DU posts that have survived from back then, this was all that was discussed.

Seriously, this was the desire back then. But now-a-days, people are all about this disproportionate representation. I guess a lot of people have short memories about how that helped us during Bush v Gore.

[Spider Jerusalem]

49. Proportional representation is more truly democratic, though.

I fail to see how the tyranny of the majority is a preferable choice; that's the way the Republicans do things, remember?

[joshcryer]

53. Runoff voting solves that issue.

In fact, it is moving the proportionment from the people and delegates, to the math at the polls.

[spoony]

155. Think of the headaches this could save people!

It's a wonderfully simple, democratic approach. Best idea I've read in GDP, that's for sure.

[Hippo_Tron]

79. If all candidates have the same amount of money, I'm all for it

[joshcryer]

136. You don't need the same amount of money with runoff, but I am for publicly only funded...

...campaigning.

It would let anyone run.

[ruggerson]

33. Make it truly proportional

use a divisor and then give each state it's proportional amount of delegates by the number of registered Dems in the state.

[Kittycat]

10. Booohoooo.

Sour grapes. If it was the other way around, you'd be dancing in the aisles. But as it stands, your candidate needs over 64% of all remaining pledged delegates just to catch Obama.

Sweet Dreams :hi:

[Bluebear]

71. My, but you've become a nasty poster. When did this happen?

[Kittycat]

83. I'm drinking :)

And I'm also sick of the complete lack of common sense. I understand wanting to support your candidate, but just face the facts, her chances are next to none.

[Bluebear]

118. LOLOL

THAT was an honest and fair answer :toast:

[rwheeler31]

11. Play by the rules.

[joshcryer]

17. Which rules? The ones saying that the superdelegates decide on a variety of criteria?

Including but not limited to the very one that the OP posted?

[ruggerson]

22. I agree. Where have I said anything to the contrary?

I'm pointing out the system is totally undemocratic and needs to be fixed.

[joshcryer]

12. People say this "supports the grassroots." I say runoff voting would do that much better.

And I also posit that runoff voting is implementable at the primary level.

Also, it's interesting that the "grassroots" consists almost entirely of small red states that Democrats hardly ever win.

[TheDonkey]

13. I see your point. Wyoming is clearly Satan.

[joshcryer]

20. Please stop with the snarky drivel.

[Botany]

14. But "the antelope" lobby is very strong in WY

BTW Ohio was real dirty too ... so was Texas.

[joshcryer]

23. WY voters came out 90% in 2004 for their state primary, they only came out 10% this time.

Quite telling.

[DURHAM D]

126. I noticed that they only came out 10% this time -

had no idea they were out 90% last time. What does it tell us? I don't understand.

[joshcryer]

137. It tells us caucuses aren't representative, that's all.

WY democrats are *clearly* politically motivated, just not "enough" to go to caucuses.

[MaineDem]

152. In 2004, a mere 675 people statewide took part in the caucuses.

That's from this article:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Obama_leads_Clinton_in_Wyoming_as_Democrats_deluge_caucuses_/articleshow/2848809.cms

The epic battle between Clinton and Obama has given Wyoming's 59,000 registered Democrats outnumbered more than 2-to-1 by Republicans in Vice President Dick Cheney's home state a relevancy they have not experienced in a presidential race in nearly 50 years.

In Wyoming, only 12 national convention delegates were at stake. From the first caucuses of the day, it became clear the state's Democrats were showing up in large numbers. In 2004, a mere 675 people statewide took part in the caucuses.

[enki23]

16. er... states aren't represented in congress based purely on their voter turnouts either

.

[Gore1FL]

24. Silly argument

comparing Caucus to Primary participation is apples and oranges.

The delegates were already apportioned based on state electoral votes and voting records in the GE over the past three elections.

See how it works here:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Alloc.phtml

so actually, the setup gives far less influence to a WY than an OH voter if you understand the procedure.

The Democratic part is only screwed up because people do half of the math when making this sort of argument, is my guess. But I really don;t see it as screwed up.

[joshcryer]

29. No it doesn't.

Not when delegates are seen as the harbringer of the sentiment of voters. Read my sigline.

[Gore1FL]

38. You signline numbers are invalid

because 4 states don;t have their final numbers listed.

Are you including MI and FL too?

And On edit: You are counting primary voters and caucus goers as equal, and that is silly too.

[joshcryer]

43. The numbers are probably worse than that.

Since Obama got more delegates out of those wins.

Also, I don't see what's silly about comparing voters to voters.

[Gore1FL]

67. You don't see or refuse to see?

First of all, you are already counting total delegates while not incluidng all the voters, so inherently they are going to be better.

Secondly, if you don't see a 12 hour window to make a five minute commitment differently than a two hour window to make a two hour commitment, then I can;t help you.

It's just math, on both accounts.

[joshcryer]

138. No, I don't see a difference.

Because you spend 2 hours to take care of your vote doesn't mean your vote should be more valuable and be worth more delegates.

That's assinine.

It's introducing voter scarcity into the system. Because caucuses *require* that less people show up, their votes are more valuable? There are less votes thus each one is more powerful?

It's a joke.

[Gore1FL]

145. Caucuses are hard to attend

You have to be able to go,and be able to stay. Their turnout is always lower.


If you want to make a real comparison of the voters represented do it the way th DNC has allocated them. It's at least honest, and takes into account voting patterns, voting turnout, and the electoral map.

Your way breaks it down in a completely different way so you can call it unfair. Use the standards set and agreed to in 2006.

[JackORoses]

121. your sig sucks. Hillary lost by the rules as they stand.

She could have won, but she lost.

She didn't bother to do all that she needed to assure victory, so she lost.

It's called poor planning and lack of followthrough. It has nothing to do with her gender.

If she was a man, she would still have lost.

[Medusa]

25. Hmmm. Who was head of the DNC when the rules were created?

Oh, that's right. Terry McAssy. A HRCer. Why don't you go bitch to him?

[ruggerson]

27. I think these proportional rules predated him

but regardless, they are not very democratic.

[dbonds]

28. Last census has Wyoming population at 515,004

With 23.6% under 18 and 59000 registered democrats. 8000 is about 13.5% of the registered democrats.

[joshcryer]

36. Yeah, it's about 12-13%, but what's telling is they had 90% turnout in 2004...

...for their local state representative primary.

[FrenchieCat]

30. Yes, and each state gets 2 Senators......

and in reference to adding up votes.....

The big-state myth debunked:

State................Obama..............Clinton

California...........2,126,000..........2,553,000

Texas ..............1,358,000..........1,459,000

New York.............698,000..........1,003,000

Illinois...............1,302,000............662,000

Ohio...................982,000..........1,212,000

Georgia...............704,000.............330,000

New Jersey..........492,000.............603,000

Virginia...............627,000.............350,000

Washington.........354,000.............316,000


Total................8,643,000 ........8,487,000

Obama ahead in the big states by more than 150,000 votes

more

[ruggerson]

41. What does that have to do with my post?

This isn't about Clinton vs Obama.

Not EVERYTHING in life is about Clinton vs. Obama.

This is about voters in big states being shafted by the DNC.

[dsc]

153. Gee you accidently, I am sure, left out

Massachusetts, Tennesee, and Arizona, all won by Clinton and all bigger than Virginia and Washington State.

[fujiyama]

32. Unfortunately this is how all seats are allocated

We should compare the number of House Representatives, Senators, or Electoral Votes from CA compared to that of WY and we see the same discrepancy.

So if you are going to make the argument the party is messed up, you could say our method of allocating representatives to congress is even more so. But since it has been capped at 435 there will always be an inherent inequality with how seats are allocated.

[Bill McBlueState]

169. it surprised me that the House of Representatives is that bad

The states with one representative are all over the map in terms of residents per representative. It doesn't make sense that Montana has almost twice the population of Wyoming but still only one Congressman.

[TwilightGardener]

34. Ohio Democrats are cheap and common. Wyoming Democrats

are rare and special.

[John Q. Citizen]

35. Obama is leading in popular vote nationwide, so I don't think it makes a difference.

[joshcryer]

37. Wait until the primaries hit again. His wins in NJ, MO, and GA helped him a lot.

[ProSense]

45. Obama is leading in the total popular votes for the big states

The big-state myth debunked:

State................Obama..............Clinton

California...........2,126,000..........2,553,000

Texas ..............1,358,000..........1,459,000

New York.............698,000..........1,003,000

Illinois...............1,302,000............662,000

Ohio...................982,000..........1,212,000

Georgia...............704,000.............330,000

New Jersey..........492,000.............603,000

Virginia...............627,000.............350,000

Washington.........354,000.............316,000


Total................8,643,000 ........8,487,000

In the popular vote, Obama by more than 150,000 votes.

link

[joshcryer]

50. Ahh, I forgot Illinois.

[Spider Jerusalem]

39. A caucus is not a primary. States choose the method by which they select convention delegates.

This is under Democratic Party rules; so long as the method of delegate selection conforms to the rules, either a caucus or a primary is acceptable.

I also suspect that, had Hillary actually won most of the caucus states, we'd not be hearing all this whining about how unfair they are.

[joshcryer]

47. Yes you would, and Obama would probably be getting attacked the most here, but people like me...

...would be picking the person who is getting unfairly attacked the most over election issues, and pointing out the undemocratic nature of caucuses, the electoral college, and so on.

Don't dismiss this issue as if it's some sort of double standard.

[John Q. Citizen]

84. Perhaps if you posted some of your threads from 2004 it would lend credibility to your

argument that this is a long time real concern of yours?

[joshcryer]

143. I did post about how Dean got owned in '04 because of the fucking caucusing system.

Obama is taking one straight from Kerry's playbook, play the caucuses, spend exorbant amounts of money to buy the perception of popularity *at* the caucus, and people will jump on board like crazy. Lock the doors, lie to people about when the caucus is, and so on.

All this shit happened in 2004 and I'm sure a google search will provide the evidence. I personally don't care to prove shit to you.

[John Q. Citizen]

177. I didn't think you could put up.

[ruggerson]

51. Do the math it works the same with Rhode Island and Vermont

Rhode Island had 185,000 Dem voters total. The state awarded 21 delegates.

That works out to 1 delegate for every 8500 voters. They get TWICE the proportional representation that Ohio does.

[Spider Jerusalem]

57. Except that the delegate totals are based on Congressional districts and overall state population.

Not on number of primary voters. So your argument is invalid, anyway.

[ruggerson]

58. I'm arguing the current system is fucked up

so my argument is totally valid. It SHOULD be based on voters.

[joshcryer]

59. That actually lends more credence to the argument.

Since caucuses are incapable of representing the overall population and districts.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

42. I can hear hillary now. 666 means that Obama's voters were EVIL! the face

of the devil incarnate!

[SoCalDem]

44. Wyoming has 500K people in the whole state...& more of 'em are R's

This caucus was not a "surprise caucus"..it was in the news, people could have gone if they wanted to..and many times more than they expected DID go..

Either her support is a mile wide & a quarter-inch deep...or her people were not as inspired by her as she would let us think..

It's up to the states to decide how they do things...the candidates know well in advance , how each state does things..

A president should be able to plan for all contingencies..not just the ones they like

[joshcryer]

48. 10% went. 90% went to the polls in 2004.

You tell me which system (primaries vs caucuses) in WY are more supportive of democracy.

Please make the argument.

[Cant trust em]

65. Democracy is about eliminating barriers to participating

People should be able to walk in off the street, register, and then vote/caucus.

[joshcryer]

140. Hard to do when your caucus is at a certain time though, and you have other obligations.

[Cant trust em]

165. That's why I like the idea of saturday caucuses

They should eliminate the idea of having certain times though. You should be able to come within a 12 hour period and you can enter with a certain group. I admit that I don't know all of the details surrounding caucuses, so feel free to burst my bubble. But I like the idea of caucuses. It forces people to talk about candidates and issues and lessens the impact of TV ads and other cheap forms of campaigning. Once people start talking about things, subtle plays on emotion aren't as effective.

[joshcryer]

174. That's called a primary. Very similar to how some firehouse primaries are.

I don't like the ability to campaign at the polls. It allows for people to coerce you into changing your mind at the last minute. Hell, you could go walking to the polls with no knowledge of the other candidate, and once you get there be convinced to vote for the other one just because everyone else is. That's now how democracy is supposed to work.

But that's how many caucuses are.

I know if I was outnumbered 10-15 to 1 I would join the "winning side" if I wasn't politically aware.

[Cant trust em]

176. If you're not politically aware, you will be by the time you leave

In your post you admit that people can go into the polls with no knowledge of the candidate. Wouldn't you rather have those people be influenced by their friends and neighbors than the MSM or some cheesy TV ads? Most people aren't beholden to corporate interests or lobbying groups to make their decisions for them. So when they go to caucus they are making arguments for their communities and families. If CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News haven't convinced me to vote for candidate X I'd much rather have someone from my community give it to me straight. At least I know that my neighbor doesn't have anyone's interest but his at heart when he's endorsing a candidate.

[SoCalDem]

66. It's not up to ME.. it's up to Wyoming

Obama & Clinton both knew how it worked..

If more of the people who planned to caucus, liked HIM, that's the way things work..

HRC should have had people on the ground for months ahead of the caucus, revving up people out there, to caucus for her..

She wrote the state off..just like she wrote many "unimportant" states off..but small numbers are still numbers and they DO add up..

It's a goofy system we have, but it's been that way forever, and I don't see it changing anytime soon..

The ONLY thing I DO see changing is the "sooooper delegate" thing... the actual voters don't seem to like that idea so much..

What needs to happen is for all the VOTER-selected totals to be added up and then divided in half or 2/3 and then +1 is the winner..That's an achievable number..

and if we went to regional primaries it would be more significant and a shared cost would be helpful too.... one ballot, the same in all of the region's states..voted on the same day, after a month of campaigning in that ne region..

[joshcryer]

139. Caucuses are akin to superdelegates as far as I'm concerned.

They're just as bad because they reward that 10% more than they do the 90%.

[SoCalDem]

146. Delegates are chosen from party loyalists.. People who work their asses off for the party

They don't even HAVE to be elected.. they could be chosen at large..Primaries & caucuses are run and the rules written by the PARTIES..not the states..

If they wanted to choose the first 50 people in the phone book, and the vote okayed it, theorhetically they could do that.. The national party has the final ok, but you get my drift..

Going to the convention as a delegate is a REWARD to the delegates for all their hard work and years of service..State parties do it differently.. the candidates need to adjust their campaigns to fit the particular state rules....It's just that simple..

[joshcryer]

149. WY proves that not everyone can participate in a caucus.

Just like not everyone can be a superdelegate.

[SoCalDem]

150. It all comes down to choice.. some people didn't care enough to show up

for whatever reason.. it was their choice.. More Obama supporters chose to show up..

It was not a surprise.. they DO have Tv in Wyoming..

[joshcryer]

157. No, it was physically impossible.

Many of the 23 caucus sites were overfilled. How do you get 59k people into 23 caucus sites? It's impossible.

But it's easy to get 59k people to go to the polls, as WY dems have proven.

[AZBlue]

60. I just think everyone's vote counts equally.

[ruggerson]

62. Not the way the current system is set up they don't

[AZBlue]

68. Not in the GE either.

I would like to see our entire election system reformed.

(However, that needs to be done during a down-time between elections, not once the election process has begun.)

[Levgreee]

61. It's the same for the electoral system. Ohioans still get A LOT more attention

it's not just about the individuals, it's about the states too.

If it was equal weight for voters, Wyoming wouldn't even be a blip on the radar. They'd be squelched by the majority. As of now their voices aren't very loud either.

The U.S. is not a Democracy. It is a Federalist Republic.

[David Zephyr]

69. Yeah? Obama has 600,000 more votes than Hillary. How convenient you overlooked that.

How do you explain that away, ruggerson?

[ruggerson]

75. This isn't about Obama vs Clinton

Put down your partisan glasses for half a second.

This is about big state voters not having anywhere near the proportional representation of small state voters.

In the example in the OP, a Wyoming Democrat has 25 times the influence on the nomination than a Ohio Democrat does.

What happened to the principle of one man one vote?

[David Zephyr]

91. Again, the one man one vote example is clear: Obama has 600,000 more votes.

600,000 more votes. No partisan glasses. Democrats from all states (big and little) voting and Obama has 600,000 more votes than Hillary.

[ruggerson]

94. Are you just pretending to be obtuse?

Or what? I'm not talking about Clinton vs Obama.

This post is NOT ABOUT Clinton vs. Obama.

This post is about the methodology of the selection process.

This post is about the fact that voters in states like VT, RI and WY have WAY more proportional say in the nominating process than voters in CA, IL, NY and OH.

Capiche?

[milkyway]

72. You are comparing apples and oranges. A caucus is a bigger time commitment, so less people will vote

than in a primary. One voter in a caucus can be viewed as representing numerous voters in a primary (I would guess 3 to 10 times as much). One reason a state chooses a caucus instead of a primary is that it's a lot less expensive to conduct.

This creates a problem when determining the overall popular vote in a nomination race--a lot fewer people attend a caucus. Hillary has unwittingly made a strong case for not simply adding up the votes in each state to determine who has more popular votes. If all states were primaries, Obama would undoubtedly be even further ahead in the total popular vote than he is right now.

btw, the Clintons have been the dominant force within the Democratic party for sixteen years. If they didn't like the rules they could have had them changed long ago. I don't remember Bill complaining in 1992 about the nominating process. It is only until now when Hillary is losing that they start whining about the process.

And as an aside, nowhere do the rules say anything about determining the winner of the nomination by adding up the popular vote. The Clintons are desperately flailing about trying to find any way they can to get the nomination.

[ruggerson]

80. The math is equally ridiculous with small primary states

compare Rhode Island to Ohio for example.

Why should a Rhode Island Dem have twice the influence on the nominating process than an Ohio Dem has?

The system is profoundly screwed up.

[frogcycle]

73. too bad people can't read your disclaimer

you point out the truth - the system is ridiculous. The whole thing. From the timing of the primaries to the delegate apportionment to the superdelegate crap - just a clusterfuck.

And the various supporters of the two candidates should just take a deep breath and go somewhere else to rag on each other. This post goes to the methodology of the Democratic Party to select its candidates. It points out issues that SHOULD be addressed. It is not "sour grapes" about anything.

[ruggerson]

77. Most people see

everything through a partisan lens right now. I'm glad you understood what I'm saying. And I agree, this system needs to be completely overhauled for 2012. It's a disgrace.

[Jamastiene]

74. Technically, the electoral college process works the same way too.

It should not be that way. Hillary said a while back if she ever became president, she'd work to change the electoral college system for that reason as well. Of course those states should have representation, but not more than twice what voters in other states have. That's just wrong.

[Hippo_Tron]

78. I'm pretty sure 8000 is the number of convention delegates, more than 8000 people caucused

So while your numbers are off, it's a fair point.

[ruggerson]

81. no, you're incorrect

http://www.wyomingdemocrats.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/1144780

[ProSense]

93. No you are incorrect!

Those are state delegates (or people vying to become delegates). A caucus is not a primary. Wyoming will select 319 delegates for their state convention.

Note the caucus votes are state delegates as opposed to a primary voters

[ruggerson]

97. No you have it wrong

8600 total people caucused/voted.

330 will be delegates to the state convention.

[ProSense]

100. No, they caucused as part of the overall process, they will select 319.

It's a process:

Wyoming will use a proportional representation system based on the results of a two-tier caucus system for apportioning delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

The “first determining step” of Wyoming’s delegate selection process will occur on March 8, 2008 with a county caucus/convention in each of the state’s 23 counties.

Participation in Wyoming’s delegate selection process is open to all voters who wish to participate as Democrats. All persons residing in the county and registered to vote as Democrats at least 15 days prior to the county caucus/convention (no later than February 22, 2008) may vote at the county caucus/convention and be elected as delegates to the State and National Conventions.

klink

[ruggerson]

104. That's not any different from what I said

8600 people caucused. 330 go to the state convention.

The point is that only 8600 people voted in the state caucuses today.

http://www.wyomingdemocrats.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/1144780

[ProSense]

107. You can't compare a caucus to a primary! That's like comparing Nevada to NY.

Not the same process.

[ruggerson]

109. the math works comparing RI to OH as well

the system is screwed up because small state voters have far more disproportional influence on the nominating process than large state voters do. It needs to be fixed for 2012.

I'm glad you backed off your mistake.

[ProSense]

113. "I'm glad you backed off your mistake." Huh? Your desperation is

mind boggling! n/t

[ruggerson]

117. I realize that being wrong

can be very irritating and upsetting. Might I suggest a shot of Patron. Use a lemon.

[Maddy McCall]

108. Sigh.

You can't talk sensibly with senseless people.

:shrug:

[ruggerson]

111. notice how he switched the subject when he realized he was wrong

the goalposts changed and he started with a new tack - saying you can't compare caucuses to primaries.

[ProSense]

112. What are you talking about? You are wrong, face it. The 8000 were caucus goers not

primary voters. And I am not a he. Get a grip, your premise is flawed!

[ruggerson]

114. they are 8000 people who voted in Wyoming. Period.

and they translate ultimately into 12 delegates to the national convention.

That's it. End of story. Your entire point is completely irrelevant.

[ProSense]

116. "translate ultimately into 12 delegates to the national convention." Yes, Hillary on the short end.

Period!

[ProSense]

115. "You can't talk sensibly with senseless people" Obviously you're

in pain and denial.

Hillary's loss is affecting your ability to face facts. You can spin from now until June and it will not produce a lead for Hillary. Deal with that.

[DURHAM D]

127. Gheez - you are so damn wrong and so don't fucking get it. eom

[ProSense]

164. No, you're in denial and "so don't fucking get it." Moronic! n/t

[cooolandrew]

The populations is way lower in that state though just under 500,000 compared to 11 million in Ohio.

[cooolandrew]

82. ...

[cooolandrew]

85. A win is a win though. That's fine with me, however you dissect it.

[bowens43]

88. Poor hillary little hillary....ahhhh

[frogcycle]

90. bite me

note my disclaimer below - this comment is directed at you for being a jerk; it is not support of HRC or criticism of BHO

[IsItJustMe]

89. I swear the posts on here are getting more ignorant by the minute.

Delegates are not based upon the number of voters. Delegates are determined by the census, the number of people that live in that state. The OP blames this on the Democratic Party. This is utterly rediculous.

[DURHAM D]

129. You are wrong.

Delegates are not based on the census. You are utterly ridiculous.

Like someone else posted. The comments on this thread are getting dumber and dumber.

[mythyc]

95. in order to form a more perfect union....

i love how some are whining about the 50 state Constitutional system now. man it must suck to be hillary and realize that the whole history of the nation has been geared exclusively to your disadvantage. go start an amendment drive if it's getting to ya, mmmkay.



yeah, have fun with that

[frazzled]

96. Well, NY awards 232 delegates, and half a million fewer people voted there than OH

Well, 400,000 fewer--but the population of NYS is fully double that of Ohio.

So. NY awards 232 delegates when only 1,744.000 voted (whazzup with that? That's fewer than voted in either Ohio or Illinois). Yet they get nearly 100 more delegates than the 2,100,000 who voted in Ohio. So Hillary gets to net tons more delegates in her home state. You know, it's "unfair" all over, so the whining should really stop (especially over 12 delegates).

Well, here's why these seeming "inequities": the number of delegates is based not on the numbers of voters showing up at the current primaries, but on total eligible democratic voters in the state (don't know if it's weighted for turnout in GE from previous election cycle). So all this vetching about numbers of delegates vs. current turnouts is specious. And primary states have inequities, too.

You know, Clinton should be able to do the math. She had an equal chance to win in Wyoming. What is this myth that somehow caucuses are "unfair" to her? Each candidate has an equal shot at getting them. And don't tell me it's because nurses have shifts on Saturday at 11 am. Both candidtes have nurses, or other workers, supporting them. And don't tell me especially that it's harder to get seniors there. Believe me, I've caucused in two different states (MN for president; MA for governor), and I've been involved in party politics a long time: the rooms are always skewed with seniors. Hell, my husband and I used to joke that we were always the youngest people in the room at Democratic functions--and we were in our 50s at the time. The deal is: Obama has been able to bring in a whole lot of new people. Hillary has had the opportunity to do that, but has failed at it. Caucuses are fair because any candidate can win them if they try and if they organize ... plus they are great party-building structures, especially in Democratic-minority states like Wyoming. I live in a machine-politics area now (Chicago), and believe me, there ain't a whole lot of chance to get any clout with the party here. Simply voting is not what democracy or party participation is. In fact, it's about the lowest level of how you can participate democratically. How many of you have been a delegate to your state convention? Well, I have ... and if you want to change the system, that is what you have to do.

[ruggerson]

99. I agree - the system is totally screwed up

my point is about methodology. Not about Clinton vs Obama.

It's wildly undemocratic that a Wyoming voter should have 25 times the influence a Ohio voter has.

[mythyc]

102. funny, i've never seen a post from you griping about representiational disparity in the senate

i even did a search just to make sure.

selective indignation wears well for the jilted jalopy of that fusty ol' constitution of ours...

[ruggerson]

106. apples and oranges

The senate is balanced by the house and is written into the constitution.

Selecting a nominee for our party is a completely different thing.

You don't believe in one man/one vote when selecting our nominee?

You think your vote should carry more weight than someone elses?

The system is fucked and needs to be totally overhauled for 2012.

[mythyc]

124. you're right on the apples and oranges, though check this out:

U.S. Constitution: Article II, Section 1

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress....

[DURHAM D]

131. Amazing. Wow have you been patient.

What you want to discuss needs to be discussed. You are trying to discuss party representation - they want to discuss the primary. Proves what newbies to the political system some of the most ardent posters really are - they don't know the difference.

[Jim Sagle]

98. Why do you hate democracy?

:sarcasm:

[wildflowergardener]

101. small states

I assume it is this way to give the small states more of a say in who the nominee is. As it is, Ohio gets 12 times more of a say than Wyoming. I can see it both ways - on the one hand you want the popular vote to have meaning, but I think it's fair to say that every state should have enough say in who gets the nomination that their state actually feels like it's being represented and gets at least some attention from the candidates.

Meg

[johnnydrama]

105. this is just the system we have

It's flawed yes it is.

But if we go by Wyoming, California should have it's own 2nd senate with 100+ senators, if Wyoming is going to have 2.

When California moved up it's Primary to Super Tuesday instead of June, I thought that was 1 good step in taking a little importance back for California.

[meow mix]

110. Hillary? is that you?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[RaleighNCDUer]

119. 666!

Satan IS running Obama's campaign!

OMG!!!

[krkaufman]

123. An eminently reasonable question.

Fortunately, each campaign knew the situation in each state, beforehand, and have had equal opportunity to compete in a free and fair fashion -- MI & FL aside.

The GE electoral college is similarly screwed-up. Small states have far more weight, largely owing to the 2-vote Senatorial bonus. I don't have the knowledge to blather on re: our unbelievable complex delegate allocation process.

[NMMatt]

130. For fuck's sake already

This shit was decided... oh... I don't know... in 1780's when they compromised on the Senate vs. the House in forming the country. If you want your vote to "count more" than move to Idaho already and quit whining about it.

[spoony]

156. Well if we're sticking to that precedent

then the Senate goes back to being elected by state legislators. That was, after all, part of the compromise.

[avrdream]

133. Good point that I hadn't considered.

I can't believe those red states have that much influence.

Barry wins caucuses in little red states - yeah, just the guy to go up against McCain. Fuck that.

[aquarius dawning]

134. Inequity is only bad when it harms Obama. Didn't you realize that?

[JoFerret]

142. Lke every state getting two senators

Two for Wyoming. And two for California etc. It is screwed up as a form of representation.

[Sparkly]

147. A lot like the electoral college.

I wish every vote, in both elections, were equal.

[Vinca]

148. FYI - In Ohio

there were 2,232,542 Democratic votes vs. 1,059,137 Republican votes. It is likely Ohio will go Democratic (assuming the voting machines aren't tampered with) no matter who the nominee is. Also, although Obama did not win Ohio, he received nearly 350,000 more votes than McCain.

[roseBudd]

162. Except there was crossover R vote tampering, espeially in SW OH because Huck was already a goner

Rs really had not much reason to vote in this primary except to protest McCain with a Huck vote, choose one downticket R over another, or tamper with the D primary as Rush encouraged

[MaineDem]

151. Are you sure that's the total vote and not just state delegates?

I know reports from the Maine caucuses said we had about 3000 votes but that was the number of delegates elected at the caucuses. We had almost 45,000 votes.

The press doesn't get it.

[stevenleser]

154. Another state that voted Obama doesn't matter, gotcha...

Keep talking the BS

[joshcryer]

158. Oh, it matters, but not as much to superdelegates as Obama supporters claim.

[Slagathor]

159. So you advocate getting rid of senate representation for RI and DE?

Nice political philosophy you got going there, or is it that you seem to be relatively uneducated in terms of the political history and political structures of this great nation, which is, in case you forget, a Republic and not a democracy. Perhaps you should start with the Federalist Papers. There's a lot of writing in there about the importance of being able to prevent factionalism. I think you need to read up on that.

[roseBudd]

161. And the heavy GOP SW OH exurban counties voted Hill in an open primary

And indeed the requests for D ballots were unprecedented, since the D nom is normally settled by March 4.

GOP election tampering?

in SW Ohio?

[Bill McBlueState]

166. interesting point

Small states have way too much clout in national politics.

In the Electoral College:

Every 174,000 people in Wyoming get 1 vote
Every 573,000 people in Ohio get 1 vote

In the Senate:

Every 261,000 people in Wyoming get 1 vote
Every 5,677,000 people in Ohio get 1 vote

Even in the House -- which is *supposed* to distribute seats based on population:

Every 523,000 people in Wyoming get 1 vote
Every 637,000 people in Ohio get 1 vote

I'm not sure why people who happen to live in one rectangle should get so much more power than people who happen to live in a different one.

[Selatius]

173. They capped the number of representatives to 435 in 1911. We had to split them for all ever since

The result is you see disparities that you noticed.

I suspect that if the cap were removed, the total number of representatives would probably double or close to it. With the cap gone, a rule could be instituted mandating that if a population is at least 400,000 but not more than 800,000, it gets one seat in the US House. If it is more than 800,000, obviously there would be two seats awarded instead of one.

My state, Mississippi, has 2,881,281 as of 2004 records. California, for instance, has 35,484,453 as of 2004 as well. That means MS would get 7 representatives, while California would receive 88 representatives. In both cases, I rounded down for simple consistency even though with California the number was 88.7111325. MS was 7.2032025. Unless you institute the rule where you round up if it's .50 or higher.

[mod mom]

170. REPUBLICAN CROSS-OVER VOTING IN OHIO (OH GOP ROOTS FOR HILLARY!)

16,000 Republicans in Cuyahoga crossed over and voted Democratic in primary

Source: Plain Dealer

16,000 Republicans in Cuyahoga crossed over and voted Democratic in primary
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Amanda Garrett
Plain Dealer Reporter

A staggering 16,000-plus Republicans in Cuyahoga County switched parties when they voted in last week's primary.

That includes 931 in Rocky River, 1,027 in Westlake and 1,142 in Strongsville. More than a third of the Republicans in Solon and Bay Village switched. Pepper Pike had the most dramatic change: just under half its Republicans became Democrats. And some of those who changed - it's difficult to say how many - could be in trouble with the law.

At least one member of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections wants to investigate some Republicans who may have crossed party lines only to influence which Democrat would face presumed Republican nominee John McCain in November.


Those who crossed lines were supposed to sign a pledge card vowing allegiance to their new party...

-snip
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/120505162549970.xml&coll=2


Ohio GOP roots for Hillary
BY HOWARD WILKINSON | [e-mail]

One of the worst-kept secrets of the Ohio presidential primary is that Republican party leaders have a candidate they are rooting for on the Democratic side.

Her name is Hillary Clinton, and they believe that if she wins the Ohio primary and goes on to become the Democratic nominee, she will be the one who unites their dispirited and divided party and give them their best chance of keeping the White House this fall.

It is a belief that the Clinton campaign says is wrong-headed and they will campaign across the state for the next three weeks making the argument that their battle-tested, experienced candidate is the only one who can go toe-to-toe with John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee this fall.

-snip

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080213/NEWS01/302130097


http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3513.19


(B) When the right of a person to vote is challenged upon the ground set forth in division (A)(3) of this section, membership in or political affiliation with a political party shall be determined by the person’s statement, made under penalty of election falsification, that the person desires to be affiliated with and supports the principles of the political party whose primary ballot the person desires to vote.




I

An Obama-Hater for Clinton, Temporarily
BY JASON HOROWITZ | MARCH 5, 2008 | TAGS: POLITICSBARACK OBAMAHILLARY CLINTONOHIO

Meet Todd Appelbaum, a 46-year-old from Columbus, who wore a shirt that says “Osama for Obama” to the Clinton campaign’s election-night event in Ohio last night.
The white t-shirt, with an image of Barack Obama dressed in traditional Somali garb, is adorned with a blue Hillary Clinton button, although Appelbaum is not what one would call a real Hillary Clinton supporter.
“I voted for Hillary today,” he said, “because I’m concerned that, God forbid, Barack Obama will beat McCain. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
http://www.observer.com/2008/obama-hater-clinton-temporarily



Controversial ABC Video of "Obama for Osama" Tee shirt wearer at Hillary's Election Night Party is Bexley businessman Todd Appelbaum :

Controversial Clinton Guest: 'Osama for Obama'

Email
Share
March 04, 2008 10:42 PM

ABC News' Kate Snow and Eloise Harper report: A controversial party guest was spotted at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's election night party in Columbus, Ohio Tuesday.

He was hard to miss. He was the one wearing the "Osama for Obama" t-shirt.

Columbus resident Todd Elbaum told ABC News his friend makes the t-shirts.

Elbaum did not hold back on his views of Obama when he was interviewed by ABC within full view of a Clinton staffer.

"The truth is he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim, his mother married a Muslim after divorcing his father. His grandfather was a Muslim. It doesn't matter. But what does matter is when Obama said he was never a Muslim. He was a Muslim. He was born a Muslim. He was a Muslim for six years of his life," Elbaum said.

Watch the VIDEO HERE.

-snip

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/controversial-c.html

[MzShellG]

175. Thank you.....

I posted a thread about this but noone responded.

[RichardRay]

172. Right math, wrong question

...unless everybody in both states votes.

I'll go along with you as long as we

declare a national holiday with pay on which to vote,

declare an alternate national holiday with pay for those with critical jobs who still can't make it to vote on the appointed day,

provide another alternate for those who are sick or disabled on the appointed day,

provide a secure and auditable way to vote remotely for those out of the country on the appointed day,

create a system that insures every member of the electorate has a deep and complete understanding of the issues,

provide a complete and exhaustive background investigation on all everybody whose name goes into the hat (the quality, completeness and veracity of which must be acceptable to all)

and levy substantial penalties against anyone who chooses not to vote.

That's a five minute list, when you've got those problems figured out I'll spend five more minutes and come up with as many more. The point is that there is NO fair way to do this, there are only the ways people choose, and right now we have some that have been chosen. It's certainly not the Platonic ideal of nominee picking methods, but we gotta pick one somehow and this is how we do it.

For every complex question there is at least one answer that is simple, elegant and wrong. I'll give you simple and elegant...