Why "Popular Vote" could never be an accurate reflection of the will of all voters in a primary

[phrigndumass]

Why "Popular Vote" could never be an accurate reflection of the will of all the voters in a primary ...

Twenty-seven states have held primary elections so far this year, with an average voter turnout overall of 13.2%.
Population in those states: 205,236,581
Democratic votes in those states: 27,069,866

Thirteen states have held caucus elections without a primary so far this year, with an average "voter" turnout overall of 2.4%.
Population in those states: 28,079,067
Democratic votes in those states: 677,509

The states with primaries outnumber the states with caucuses-only by 2 to 1. However, the votes counted in those states with primaries outnumber the votes counted in the states with caucuses-only by 5.5 to 1. That leaves 3,026,005 voters in the caucus-only states unaccounted for.

If an accurate "popular vote" is impossible, how could we know the will of all the voters? And unless these 3,026,005 could be counted in some way, the idea of an accurate "popular vote" is ridiculous.

Have a look for yourself, spreadsheet at this link:
http://www.box.net/shared/nfxf9w4sok

:popcorn:

[Captain Hilts]

1. Caucuses discourage participation and are not at all like voting. nt

[dkf]

7. Caucuses are cheaper to run.

[Captain Hilts]

21. Correct-a-mundo. nt

[bluestateguy]

2. In the future, we should award delegates on the basis of the national popular vote

It would be a bonus of say, 200 delegates for the national vote winner. But that should be in 2012. The rules for 2008 were spelled out very clearly, and must be adhered to.

And scrap superdelegates.

[seriousstan]

3. If you don't vote you cannot be a "voter".

[phrigndumass]

5. Then how do you account for those 3 million people who couldn't vote?

What is their will?

[seriousstan]

6. Couldn't vote? What, no absentee ballots?

[phrigndumass]

11. Vote absentee in a caucus state?

You have to actually be there (or send someone in your place) at a caucus to actually pledge your support for a candidate.

[seriousstan]

13. And you can mystically divine how many wanted to vote but "couldn't"?

Please tell me the exact percentage that were just too lazy. Also the percentage that were not interested. How about the percentage that didn't make up their mind yet?

Do you have those numbers also?

[phrigndumass]

14. Statistically, not mystically

Look at the spreadsheet in the link in OP. Maybe you're just too lazy.

[phrigndumass]

18. 10.8% of the population in caucus states

There's the exact percentage unrepresented, statistically. I wouldn't call them lazy, though, because you might disenfranchise them even more.

[benddem]

4. It is well known

that only party regulars vote in primaries. That's why so many wingnuts in the reptile party get elected. Might be in the Democratic party too...but they always seem to agree with me.

[Brandnewday]

8. Very few people attend caucuses

This system has been criticized by everyone excluding those who benefit from it.

[joshcryer]

9. It's more accurate than delegate count.

Delegate count gives those 3% significantly more sway than a popular vote consideration would.

[Bad Thoughts]

10. Rosanvallon

If anyone really wants to know, read Pierre Rosanvallon on the democratic deficit.

[annie1]

12. agree, b/c caucuses do not reflect the popular vote as proven by texas.

[PseudoIntellect]

15. Pledged delegate count is more accurate.

Obviously, a caucus that goes 75/25 for Obama would net him more popular vote if it were a primary than it did as a caucus. Even if it didn't go 75/25, but 65/35, it would still give him much more net votes than in a primary. So, the only way to proportionally represent both caucuses and primaries is to have pledged delegates.

Popular vote is much less meaningful when you have both primaries and caucuses. It would only be accurate with all caucuses or all primaries.

[phrigndumass]

16. Yes, that's it exactly

The number of pledged delegates per state is chosen by their representative population.

Votes in caucus states can't be considered a "popular vote" that is 100% equal to a popular vote in a primary contest.

[RichardRay]

17. I'll agree to the overarching virtue of a popular vote primary

when we provide:

- paid national holiday to hold all primaries simultaneously
- state funded transportation for the elderly, shut-ins and
others who otherwise couldn't make it to the polls
- paid alternate national holidays for the folks
who couln't make that one.
- safe and secure remote voting for folks who can't
make it to the polls due to illness or emergency
- a mandatory national curriculum on issues in play
delivered to all voters, with significant criminal
penalties for failing to attend and pass an exam at
the end. you may 'test out' of this, of course
- a full vetting of all candidates by an independent
investigating body agreed to by all candidates
- and a significant criminal penalty for failing to
participate in the vote.

Until then it's six of one and a half dozen of the other.

[phrigndumass]

19. 27,000,000 votes in primary states, only 677,000 votes in caucus states

If the caucus-only states were represented in a "popular vote" total the way primary states are, there would be a turnout-by-population average of 13.2% in caucus-only votes. There was only 2.4% turnout-by-population average in caucus-only states.

So 27 states have 27 million votes, while the other 13 states have less than 1 million votes.

How is a fair and representative popular vote count possible in caucus-only states when you get outvoted by 5.5 to 1 compared to the primary states? Unless you're just counting the popular vote for primary states only, which would disenfranchise the caucus-only states.

If popular votes are absolutely necessary, then the popular vote totals should be weighted for caucus-only states.

[phrigndumass]

20. Here's what a "weighted" popular vote total would look like

Popular votes:

Primaries only as of March 16 (includes WA,MS):
Barack Obama – 13,173,496
Hillary Clinton – 12,639,549

Caucuses only as of March 16:
Barack Obama – 471,170
Hillary Clinton – 264,302

If skewed 5.5 to 1:
Caucuses only as of March 16 should be:
Barack Obama - 2,591,435
Hillary Clinton - 1,453,661

Total weighted popular vote as of March 16 would be:
Barack Obama - 15,764,931
Hillary Clinton - 14,093,210

[milkyway]

22. Yep, Hillary has unwittingly made the case herself that caucuses are unrepresentative.

And contrary to Clinton partisan spin--"but my voters work!"--Obama kicks ass in caucuses for these reasons:

--the voters in those states support Obama more than Clinton (check the polls)

--Hillary the Fighter surrendered many caucus states without putting up a fight

--Obama is a much better manager, organizer and strategist than Clinton

--Obama supporters are more committed than Clinton supporters


Throughout this campaign and every other one for decades, it's always been the delegates that decide the nomination. That is understood by all. The media always keeps a running total of delegates won, not the popular vote totals. McCain celebrated as the presumptive nominee when he crossed the threshold of 1191 delegates. No one knows what his popular vote total was.

[milkyway]

23. Also: if popular vote totals were to matter, many caucus states would have run primaries instead.

And most caucus states are Obama states, not just in the caucuses, but in the polls leading up to them.

[phrigndumass]

24. True

Popular votes must be an idea mentioned in the "edited" rules for the primary convention ... you know, the edited set of rules that would seat Michigan's delegation from the January results.

But if they're going to be used to cull superdelegates, then the real popular vote totals should be weighted to consider the real popular votes from caucus states.

[tandem5]

25. I agree that the popular vote without the caucus numbers is an incomplete...

assessment, but this doesn't give any credence to the idea that the delegate tally is a better metric for determining will. In fact the whole point of delegates is to give more power to states with smaller populations at the expense of individual voters:

It takes ~10,000 people to appoint one delegate in California with average turnout and ~4600 people to appoint one delegate in Wyoming with 100% turnout.

[phrigndumass]

26. It makes sense to say that even delegates aren't accurate representations either

So for future primaries, what could be an answer to this? (We obviously couldn't work under a different system this time around)

Do you think that all primaries (without delegates but with popular votes) could work?

:hi:

[tandem5]

31. Yes, primaries without delegates that are held on the same day for all states.

But that's a pipe dream. Its no coincidence that the delegate system (with the exception of the super delegates) very closely mirrors the electoral college of the general election. It is the very old issue of states' rights and even though some ranking Democrats will speak out against the "antiquity" of the system the DNC's actions in pandering to states like Iowa and New Hampshire and strictly enforcing the order in which states hold their elections speaks volumes.

[Drachasor]

27. Most places Obama won a caucus would probably be close wins for him at worse

If not close losses. In other words, they wouldn't change the popular vote much, and more likely they'd just shift it more towards Obama. A number of the caucus States would probably of been significant wins for Obama as well, which would have definitely caused his net Popular vote to increase.

[phrigndumass]

28. Ahh, but based on turnout-by-population, it would change the popular vote by 3 million

... 3 million would be more than 10% of the popular votes so far. It would change the popular vote by adding 10% to it, based on weighting for caucuses.

If caucus voting were weighted for "popular" votes, Obama's 471,170 caucus votes would become 2,591,435 popular votes. Likewise, Clinton's 264,302 caucus votes would become 1,453,661 popular votes. This would be based on the 5.5 to 1 skew towards primary-state popular votes.

It would shift it more towards Obama. Not "intentionally" but fairly.

:thumbsup:

[Drachasor]

29. That's what I am saying. If they were primaries it would still be net gains for Obama

[phrigndumass]

30. Got it.

:thumbsup: