There's No Such Thing As A "Popular Vote" In A Primary Season Including Caucuses

[KittyWampus]

so please even stop talking about the "popular vote" unless you can figure out how to count all the people who helped either candidate win the caucuses.

Oh wait! You can figure out how to count the people who voted for the winner of a caucus- it's the PLEDGED DELEGATE COUNT.

Hillary and the Mediawhores have a reason for talking about it as if it means something.

But then, Hillary is dishonest and doesn't give a shit about the Democratic party and the Mediawhores seem happy to enable her.

[BlueIdaho]

1. Thank You

For reminding folks why a popular vote has NEVER been used to sort out a party's primary election.

[billbuckhead]

2. It's time to do away with caucuses and make the primaries like actual elections

[SoCalDem]

15. Primaries cost a lot more to run than caucuses

so then maybe the state parties need to start spending some real money..

I would like to see CLOSED primaries..with an advance registration cut off , of 6 months (that would avoid the Rush-effect)..

and if some people truly come to the candidates late in the season, they can work for them and then vote in the fall :)

[BlueIdaho]

20. If

it weren't for caucuses - Idaho Democrats would have no voice whatsoever. I know we don't count for much but seeing 1,200 democrats (standing room only) cheering like crazy in THE MOST republican state in the union gave us all HOPE - ok there, I said it... HOPE.

[SoCalDem]

21. and that's why states decide on their own..

and HRC had just as much of an opportunity to campaign in Idaho, but she declined.. :hi:

[BzaDem]

30. WAAAAAAHH! Democracy is expensive! Boo hoo!

[AllentownJake]

33. Hurting the Party

By doing that you hurt the chance to grow the party with young voters and independents who decide to join the party.

[democrattotheend]

24. That might be worth looking at for future elections

But it's not relevant right now.

[elixir]

25. I agree.

[ORDem]

3. Thank you Thank you! Been trying to explain this all over. Though, one part is wrong,

You say that you can't figure out how to count the people in caucus states. That's EXACTLY what the pledged delegate count represents.

:dem:

[KittyWampus]

4. just changed it. Thanks. So simple, even a child should understand it.

[elixir]

27. Apparently, you didn't understand it either.

[kirby]

5. Popular vote has some use...

It can be seen as a metric of public support in raw numbers. In the General Election popular vote doesn't really matter either since we have an Electoral Collage system. But it is still a useful number to discuss generally, but it should always be taken into consideration that our Electoral system does not work based on popular votes.

[Ravy]

7. If the Democratic primary was decided the same way we decide the GE,

then Hillary would need only one more state to win the nomination, if my calculation is correct.

I am not proposing that. I am just saying that it is interesting how different measurements of the "people's will" give such different results when using different tools to measure it.

[KittyWampus]

12. Well, then the caucus goers would have to be added for that "useful metric" to be meaningful

I don't know, divide total caucus goers into percentages for winning candidate?

[sunnystarr]

19. Well really it can't...

In a GE every voter is counted in the popular vote when used to contrast it with the electoral votes. In the primary season that's not possible since the only votes that can be counted for a popular vote are from the states that ran a primary. Caucus states are not and cannot be viewed in the same category. So you can't compare primary season popular votes with the GE popular vote.

[krkaufman]

28. Except there's a prime difference between the GE electoral college and the Dem nomination process

In the GE, all the states conduct elections, where the popular vote winner translates to electoral votes received -- with winner-take-all in all but a couple states.

However, in the Dem nomination process, some states conduct primary elections while others conduct party caucuses -- where the turnout for the primary elections is much greater than the caucuses, so the popular vote total becomes heavily skewed to the primary results and effectively negates the caucuses states.

One other reason to be wary of the popular vote as a metric is that just a couple large states could entirely determine the nomination by a large turnout skewing heavily to one candidate, building a popular vote lead that would be difficult to overcome regardless of the preferences in the rest of the 50 states. (less than optimal if we're trying to strengthen the party across all 50 states)

[Ravy]

6. Obama talks about it, too.

He will probably talk less about it if Hillary cuts into it significantly, but he always brings it up when talking about his lead.

[krkaufman]

29. Which is foolish and misleading, in my opinion.

Also in my opinion, this trumpeting of the "popular vote" is where the DNC needs to step-in and inform the media as to why the popular vote cannot be a determining factor in selecting the nominee -- with the current rules.

The Dem Party would need to go with all caucuses or all primaries before the popular vote would be relevant; and, even then, it shouldn't be used because just a few large states could skew heavily for one candidate and effectively determine the nomination. Something to be avoided if we're trying to strenghten the party to compete in all 50 states.

[Sensitivity]

8. Yes. Combining numbers from Caucus States and Primary States in meaningless

[Donna Zen]

9. Dem Rules

First let me say thanks for trying to help people think this through, and now let me tell my story, the story of one of those Democratic committee members.

The DNC issued their rules over a year ago to all of the state parties. When we received the rules (my came as an email attachment) we read them before we went to the state committee meeting. At that meeting there was a dispute about one of the rules. Because of the 15% threshold, Edwards had lost a delegate in 04, a situation that many of us, myself included, didn't like. (note: I was not an Edwards supporter in 04 and at the time of this meeting, I didn't support anyone.)

Anyway, as the members rose to speak, it became very clear that failure to abide by rules meant that we would risk the seating of our delegates. Also, the rules were then posted on our website for two months before we took the final vote.

Over the next few months we prepared for the caucus. Why? Because the caucus means that we expand our party, and it insures community involvement at a deeper level. Also, we provide absentee caucus ballots. We could have skipped the expense of the doing this and gone with the state run primary in June for free. However, the caucus delegates that are chosen then attend the state convention where the actual delegates will be chosen by election to go to Denver.

If your still with me, here's my rant: At no time were we informed the popular voted matter more than our efforts. Maine gets high voter turn out, and we too could have had a say in what goes on in Denver. Hell, we could have even saved party money by going to with primary.

I'm tired of people blaming the DNC. They were very clear about all of this. Considering the FL & MI knew what was coming, those state parties could have made alternate arrangements a year ago before they disqualified their voters. Instead they chose to play chicken and provide lots of spin.

But this popular vote qualifier is junk. Changing the rules that we so carefully followed is a big pile of stinking crap.

[krkaufman]

31. Thanks for sharing. The "popular vote" qualifier is, indeed, bunk.

My sound bite against the popular vote nonsense...

The candidates are running to be the nominee of the Democratic Party, not the nominee of the Democratic Primaries.

[KittyWampus]

10. KICK

[rug]

11. If you only count pledged delegates as the deciding factor, what is the purpose of the supers?

[KittyWampus]

13. the subject of this thread is the idiotic usage of the "popular vote" in discussing the primary

it is meaningless.

[rug]

14. I must have misconstrued your all caps.

[KittyWampus]

18. and yet more DU'ers talking about popular vote and the millions who voted for Hillary

[krkaufman]

26. They're all in a tizzy about, supposedly, disenfranchising MI & FL voters ...

... but show no concern over disenfranchising all of those in states that conducted caucuses.

[tekisui]

16. KNR!

[IsItJustMe]

17. I don't understand the hype involved in pushing the popular vote meme, when what you say is obvious.

[krkaufman]

23. Mediawhores are either woefully ignorant ... easily fooled ... or in Clinton's pocket.

In my opinion, it's a little of all three, in the above order.

[totodeinhere]

32. I have seen Chuck Todd making the OP's point however.

[krkaufman]

34. Yeah, I have heard a *very* few making the point, sort of as an aside ....

... but I'm hearing the popular vote nonsense far more frequently. Also, Chuck Todd is only on MSNBC, which is the least carried news channel. (e.g. it's not carried by the cable company in the town where my parents live)

[krkaufman]

22. Precisely. The candidates are seeking the nomination of the Democratic PARTY ...

... not the nomination of the Democratic PRIMARIES.

Considering the popular vote in selecting the nominee would effectively disenfranchise all of those who have participated in caucuses.

The "popular vote" talk is irrelevant in a process where states can hold primaries *or* caucuses. If the rules had stated that the popular vote was to be a determining factor, you can bet that the states that held caucuses would have reconsidered.