What Should Matter More? Popular Vote or Pledged Delegates?

[Austinitis]

So, counting Florida and Michigan, Hillary isn't that far behind in the popular vote (she's about 100,000 behind). And it's entirely possible that Hillary will pass that mark in Pennsylvania and become the popular vote front-runner. Moreover, neither candidate is going to be able to win with just pledged delegates: we're basically in a race where the game is to make a moral case to super-delegates.

So we end up with the question: What should super-delegates care about the most: the popular vote or pledged delegate tally?

I think popular vote is pretty obviously the better measure of popular will. (In fact, I think it's such an obviously better metric of popular will that we may be able to "flip" Obama pledged delegates. Probably we can't flip that many of them, but if we flip just 5%, that means Hillary picks up 75 delegates and Obama loses 75. That's a 150 delegates worth of movement, which can basically erase Obama's lead instantly.)

[nichomachus]

1. They should care about the good of the party

The supers were put there to prevent someone from getting a ton of delegates and/or popular vote in early voting and then later prove to be an embarrassment to the party in some way -- or otherwise prove themselves incapable of winning in November.

[Arkansas Granny]

9. That's my take on it too. The function of the SDs is to pledge to the candidate that they

feel has the best chance to win the GE in November.

[SwampG8r]

119. popular vote doesnt exist if you have a caucus included

there are no vote totals for caucus states so this is an invalid comparison
logic demamds pledged delegates be used as the standard

[Vinca]

2. The system is set up for delegates. You can't go by the primary

vote because some of the states held caucuses instead. Personally, I think the system should be set up for the popular vote, but it can't be done this year because a whole bunch of states picked delegates and didn't have a primary vote. I realize that's just a technicality to a Clinton supporter because the only caucus states that count are the ones Hillary won.

[Austinitis]

17. Every caucus goer's vote counts just as much as a primary goer's

it's only the state that loses influence because of caucuses. And we stopped being a nation of states (and became a nation of people) a while ago.

Besides, if you have the caucus system someone in Idaho gets something like 20 times the influence of someone in California.

I say one person, one vote. And the popular vote does that.

[Vinca]

60. But voter registration is not checked in the caucus states so officially,

it's not a vote. Some states have both a vote and a caucus, but not all. Maybe it should be changed before the next time around, but this time we're going to have to go with the current system.

[TheDoorbellRang]

75. Sounds like you oughta run for Howard Dean's job

Edited to add: :sarcasm:

[dbmk]

82. Problem is

that you will have problems enticing the candidates to campaign on a 50 state strategy, because they will all be afraid that one of the others will run with one of the big states. Hurting the party in a GE.

And if you shift the GE to popular vote only you will to a large practical degree disenfranchise the voters in the less population dense areas, for the same reason.

[BzaDem]

117. Voters in "less population dense areas" are not disenfranchised with the popular vote.

Candidates might not campaign there, but that doesn't mean they are disenfranchised.

I think its wrong to say that those who live in rural areas have more voting power solely to entice candidates to campaign there. One person, one vote was created for a reason.

[Blondiegrrl]

71. Ditto everything you've said.

:hi:

[phrigndumass]

3. She's actually about 800,000 behind

... but either/or, doesn't matter. Senator Obama only needs about 67 superdelegates (about 23%) to seal the deal.

[Austinitis]

20. Only if you disenfranchise millions of people

in Florida and Michigan. And I see no reason to do that. The DNC took away the delegates from those states, but they can't take away their voices.

[phrigndumass]

30. Good luck with that!

67

:evilgrin:

[rock]

49. I don't believe he needs luck

First round will not decide a winner. It will become a brokered convention. If the popular vote is close (within say a half a per cent), delegates will not fear picking either candidate. And delegates will be aware of who their constituencies want.

[tekisui]

52. With only 2 candidates, first round will decide the winner.

One will get 2025+, and the other will get less than half.

[rock]

58. Well Florida and Michigan delegates

won't be in the mix (about 340 delegates as close as I can make out). The big O may be close, but I don't think he'll have the 2025 needed.

[tekisui]

62. When FL & MI were stripped of their delegates, the number reduced

to 2025. So, the delegates for grabs are 4051.

Obama will enter the Convention(if Hillary is still running) being just 80-100 shy of 2025. With 300 Superdelegates undecided as of now, he will probably enter the Convention with 2025+. One vote to him.

I doubt, seriously, Hillary will make it to the Convention. She will drop sometime in June, after all the votes are in and most of the Supers break.

[rock]

64. Thanks tekisu

I couldn't find a clear cut statement on this.

[Zhade]

99. Keep dreaming. He'll be the nom when you finally wake up.

NT!

[RiverStone]

93. Their "voice" was based on an illegitimate primary!

I'll never get how some folks can legitimize a vote where in one, Obama was not on the ballot (MI) - and in the other, they were told the vote would not count (FLA)!

Yes, MI/FLA should have a re-do and I agree the voters were screwed, but to count what they did (against the rules of the DNC) as a real vote would be total bullshit.

It was not a real vote - real people voted, yes - but it would be like saying a spring training games counts in the regular MLB season. It was not a meaningful vote because everybody knew they would not count! That is even what Hillary said - so what's the beef?

Of course, this is like arguing religion. We can agree to disagree on this point forever.

[Zhade]

97. It's not disenfranchisement, and that's a fact.

Don't like it? Argue with the legal precedent that states we have no right to vote in PRIMARIES.

[BzaDem]

118. Your definition of disenfranchisement is different than that of the poster.

The poster's definition of disenfranchisement is not having the right to vote for a particular candidate, regardless of the circumstances. Your definition of disenfranchisement is not having the right to vote for a particular candidate when given the constitutional right to do so.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. I think the rules that were in place when the game started are the

rules that should be in place when the game ends. Then we can evaluate the rules and change them if they are not correct. In general, changing the rules in the middle of the game is considered cheating.

[hell-bent]

19. How about the rules for the Super-delegates?

If you check it out, the Super-delegates were designed to vote for the nominee as they see fit to do so. They do not have to vote for the candidate with the most caucus delegates. Perhaps they will study which states the two candidates won and whether those states are winnable in the GE. And, which candidate is the most electable. Surely, you have no problems with that process,right? After all, you can't change the rules in mid-stream,right?

[Warren Stupidity]

51. That is correct: SD's can vote any way they want.

I personally think the SD's should be abolished, but obviously not for this convention.

[lapfog_1]

57. I have no problem with the Supers selecting whoever they want...

and I'm sure the Democratic party will have no problems with me not being a member or contributing anymore. Same rules.

[rock]

61. You eloquently point out the supers' motivation

as always, theirs will be a political decision. Typically I think this means they will support their constituency (if they have one).

[americanstranger]

76. Most SDs are elected officials.

They will go with who their constituents voted for, because if they're in office, they don't want to piss off the people whose votes they'll be seeking next time around.

But I think as we get closer to the convention, many more SDs are going to break for Obama. Hillary's comments that surfaced today are not going to help her in that regard.

- as

[Zhade]

100. Oh, you and your ethics and sense of fair play!

clinton supporters don't often care about those ideals.

[onenote]

5. and how many popular votes are you giving Obama for Michigan?

None? Is that what you think is an accurate reflection of his support in Michigan?

Just curious.

[hell-bent]

29. Well, he had an organized effort

for his supporters to vote for "Uncommitted"! Too bad he lost! http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/organizing/4vpbl

[onenote]

32. so then, let's give him the uncommitted vote

In which case, according to the figures relied on by the OP, Obama's popular vote margin, even excluding the caucus states (so much for popular will), would jump from 94,000 to over 332,000.

[IsItJustMe]

6. Well, if they were smart, and realized that the most loyal voting block is the African American

community, they would have to go with Obama. If they were real stupid, they could go with Hillary and destroy the Democratic party for the next 10 years. Pretty easy decision to me.

[wileedog]

7. So you want to count FL and MI illegal votes

one without a name on the ballot, but completely throw away all of the caucus states, which were legitimate exercises.

In other words this posts means:

"If we can break some rules over here, nullify a bunch of states over here, and completely change where we put the finish line, then Hillary wins!!!!!"

Karl Rove must be in awe of you people.

[Austinitis]

28. Again, there's nothing in the rules about this

The DNC only stripped the delegates. The votes were still real, legitimate votes.

[wileedog]

43. LOL, with Obama's name not on the ballot?

So "ZERO" is a legitimate vote total for Obama in Michigan?

And popular vote is useless anyway in this election.

[hell-bent]

34. Wait a minute!

His name was on the ballot in Florida and I personally viewed his political ads here in Florida. He organized a vote in Michigan for "Uncommitted" in Michigan. Sneaky little devil isn't he?

[onenote]

40. what's "sneaky" is not giving Obama credit for any votes in Michigan

and pretending to care about 'popular will' -- if you're going to give him credit for encouraging voters to vote "uncommitted" in Michigan, I presume you have no problem with crediting him with the 238,000 uncommitted votes, in which case his margin, even without the caucus states, is over 332,000 -- a number that HRC is highly unlikely to make up in Pennsylvania even if she exceeds all expectations and wins by 20 percent.

[wileedog]

48. The Michigan vote was thrown out by the courts

as invalid. The Florida vote is no more valid, as you cannot accurately say what the totals would have been had the vote been declared official BEFOREHAND.

Again, this is desperate Hillary supporters trying to bend the rules because they are losing, not legitimate arguments.

if George Bush was the one making the argument that Michigan or Florida should count, and it would give him another term, would you support him? After all, its only fair that everyone's voice is heard, right?

[Texas Hill Country]

8. we all bitched about the popular vote being important with Gore, why not now?

[apocalypsehow]

11. Glitchy double-post *delete*

[apocalypsehow]

12. And I can just about 100% guarantee that if the roles were reversed you'd be sniffing high & mighty

about "the rules," instead of asking such silly rhetorical questions.

[Texas Hill Country]

31. i am not saying i wouldnt be, but both sides do have a point.

[Mooney]

14. We bitched

but we didn't argue that the result should be overturned to benefit the candidate who got more votes, simply on that basis. All the efforts to recount Florida were efforts to get Gore his rightful share of electoral college votes.

[Debi]

23. delete

spelling counts x(

[Debi]

24. We bitched about the popular vote during the 2000 PRIMARY??

Primary contests vs. General election

Apples vs. Oranges

[hell-bent]

36. Of course, that is true.

The nominee that has the most popular votes should be the choice of the Democrats. You must count Florida and Michigan.

[karynnj]

38. In the general election, how many states ran caucuses?

[kmsarvis]

78. apples and oranges!!

General elections don't mix primary and caucus totals.The current popular vote total doesn't accurately represent the will of the people.If primaries were held in the caucus states Obamas lead in the popular vote would be much larger.

[stillcool]

89. Because it's a Primary?

[Zhade]

101. Uh, different elections maybe?

Duh?

[apocalypsehow]

10. Last I heard, she was about a million votes behind in the popular vote, not counting FL & MI.

Now, I don't believe she "won" by margins in those two states to bring her within 100,000. Do you have a link to back up your assertion that "counting" FL & MI (which isn't going to happen in any event) would bring her within 100,000?

[babylonsister]

13. Please provide a link to that popular vote number; I'm thinking you're wrong. nt

[Austinitis]

15. Just go to RCP

It's not hard to find the tally sheet.

[onenote]

21. I'll repeat my question: do you think that giving Obama zero votes for Michigan

reflects the popular will that you are so concerned about?

[apocalypsehow]

41. That's not how it works, sport. You made the assertion, it is incumbent upon you to provide the

evidence to back up your assertion.

I call bullshit.

[onenote]

18. its "right" but only if you leave out the caucus states and give obama zero for Michigan

its the fifth line down.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

[babylonsister]

22. Thanks for the link; so it's not really 'right'. Gotcha.

Until someone rules on FL/MI, I don't know why those numbers are included in anything.

[ecstatic]

16. That's an issue for AFTER this primary. Can't change rules midstream

because your candidate is a sore loser. If Hillary had a problem with the way the Democratic primary was run, she had many many years to talk to Dean and past head's of the DNC about changing the rules.

[Austinitis]

25. There's no rule changing going on

I'm not proposing here that we give Michigan and Florida their delegates. I'm saying the super-delegates should find the popular vote more morally relevant than they find the delegate count. And there's nothing in the rules about that.

[onenote]

27. You really don't like this question do you:

Do you think that attributing zero popular votes to Obama for Michigan accurately reflects the popular will? Do you think that the superdelegates should assume that there isn't one person in Michigan that supports Obama?

Waiting....

[wileedog]

35. Why would they do that?

The election is built on a system for totalling Pledged Delegates. The mere existence of caucus states affirms that.

If the SDs only consider popular vote, they are changing the rules, and "disenfranchising" every caucus state.

[Debi]

39. Not give MI and FL their delegates

but count the votes as if the delegates were being awarded?

[hell-bent]

42. Well, I am sure you will not bitch

it the SDs decide that Hillary is the best choice to win in the GE. Those rules on how these delegates can vote are quite clear if you check it out on Google. If Hillary is their choice, and you are upset you can consider Ralphie!

[onenote]

44. I won't bitch if the SDs go for HRC. Will you agree not to bitch if they go to Obama?

Which, by the way, they are doing in growing numbers.

[Zhade]

103. They won't, so it's a moot question. She's not going to be the nom.

Get used to the disappointment (though why you support a proven liar is beyond me).

[rurallib]

26. Lapel pins!

Flags and / or crosses!

[mmonk]

33. Pledged.

The early states had early voting as well as the fact, they had more candidates than two. Second, Florida and Michigan will be seated in some determination but that can't be based on a determination reflective of how flawed their primaries were. Third, up to this point, Obama has the most pledged delegates from 30 states to Clinton's 14. When you look at a map, that's pretty overwhelming.

[karynnj]

37. In a convoluted mix of primaries and caucuses, the popular vote is a very strange statistic

So, pledged delegates is more important. For that reason and because it was the way the game was set up.

[MaineDem]

45. It's impossible to determine popular vote

Caucuses don't normally report that number. I know Maine didn't and I don't think Iowa did.

Popular vote doesn't count in the nomination process as the rules are written so this is actually an invalid question.

[BlueIdaho]

46. In a mixed system involving caucuses

there is no such think as an accurate count of popular vote. If you do manage to extrapolate one including a fair representation of caucus votes then Obama is even further in the lead - including MI and FL counts as they stand.

[AllentownJake]

47. I'll let you know after PR

Than I loudly protest the rightness of my side :-)

[Scout]

50. the popular vote n/t

[goletian]

53. delegates are what counts, they represent the peoples vote.

thats just the way it is.

[quantass]

54. ***** CORRECTION: HILLARY IS BEHIND BY 800,000 in popular votes *****

[ecdab]

72. 827,308 n/t

[tritsofme]

55. Whoever wins the popular vote has the strongest moral claim to the nomination.

Hands down.

That candidate will be the choice of the People, not of 50+ different arcane delegate selection processes.

There are numerous reasonable scenarios under which Clinton comes out ahead in the popular vote, the spread sheet below allows you to map out a plethora of different scenarios:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/chooseyourown.html

[SemiCharmedQuark]

63. And what about states with caucuses. Do those people not count at all?

[tritsofme]

79. Many caucus states give head counts.

And for the few others, reasonable estimates can be made.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

88. "Reasonable estimates"

So in other words, yes, screw the caucus states.

[hell-bent]

84. Right on!

[Zhade]

105. Completely untrue, due to caucus states.

NT!

[tritsofme]

107. Caucuses are inherently less representative than primaries

However when we are counting heads they all count the same.

[yewberry]

114. No, they're not counted the same.

In WA, we'd choose between and estimate or a non-binding primary that more than half the state ignored because it was non-binding.

So, then the 18 hours of my time that I spent caucusing maybe counts and maybe doesn't? Uh-uh, I don't think so.

[lapfog_1]

56. Why should you include Florida and Michigan?

Just wondering...

Also, if it's popular vote totals that matter, shouldn't that be stated at the beginning of the primary season, you know, so that a candidate can plan to win that instead the metric that they were told would matter, the metric of delegates?

Because some candidates actually planned a campaign to win those insignificant states... they might have planned a different campaign if they had been told that, uh, oops, its really the popular vote that matters and you shouldn't worry about pledged delegates.

But hey, if changing the goal posts makes your day... go for it. The rest of us will finish the game with the same field, goal posts, and refs that we started on.

[ecdab]

73. Why don't they count IA, WA, NV, and ME - is also an interesting question.

[MercutioATC]

59. Pledged delegates....it's the rules.

Personally, I'd love to do away with the delegate system, but that's not in the cards for this election cycle.

To retain any degree of integrity in our election process, we have to resist changing the rules in the middle of an election.

[tritsofme]

80. Which rule are you referring to?

The rules say you need to get to 2024 delegates.

It does not say the nominal pledged delegate leader must be the nominee.

[BlooInBloo]

65. Hush sockpuppet. It's just not going to matter.

[Life Long Dem]

66. The rules. n/t

[dansolo]

67. Why does Hillary get to count the Mighigan votes?

This argument is false, because Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan. Why should Hillary get to be awarded the votes in an election that was declared to not count ahead of time, and hers was the only name on the ballot?

But in any case, the superdelegates should defer to the pledged delegate leader, unless something happens that would significantly affect the outcome of the election in the fall. It would have to be something like an arrest, or major scandal, not the minor insignificant crap that the pundits have recently been salivating over.

[Igel]

68. SDs should do whatever they want.

Why?

Because the popular vote is skewed. It leaves out MI and FL. It treats caucus goers as equivalent to primary voters (and as we saw in Texas, they're different and the assumption you can compare them is unwarranted). In closed primaries it reflects the will of the purely dem electorate willing to vote; in open primaries it reflects the will of whoever decided to vote for the dem candidate; these are also disparate kinds of electorates.

The way the delegates are awarded is also intentionally skewed to not reflect the actual vote count, whether a primary or caucus vote. It rewards some precincts for past turnout, so that in some areas 100 votes "buys" you a delegate, in others 1000 votes gets you a delegate. Some states reward the candidate getting a plurality more than other states. Each delegate has a different number of votes "behind" him or her.

Not all caucuses are created equal. In some states you stand around and jaw-jaw, and if you're in a well-peopled group you can peel off people to allow underrepresented candidates stay in the running and get some delegates--or convince them to join you. In Texas the "caucus" is essentially a second primary--you come back after the polls close, sign in, and then leave if you want to. (Of course, if everybody for a candidate leaves, they may not have enough people present to occupy the delegate slots awarded that candidate.)

Then you have the question of where to apply the delegate or vote count. Should TX SDs go with the TX pledged delegate count? Or maybe the TX vote? Should they all go with the vote, or work it out to represent the voters/pledged delegates *proportionally*? Or should their votes be determined not by Texas but by the national numbers, winner-take-all or proportionally?

Best to stick with the rules as written until September, then figure out a way of making the rules saner. Dean "needs" to have the SDs commit quickly like my four-year-old kid "needs" to watch Jacob Two-Two in a couple of minutes. Both will run up against the rules: SDs are free agents, and it's my kid's bedtime.

[MarjorieG]

69. Recently heard conversion of causcus votes put Obama over 1 mill.

[kwenu]

70. It depends. Did somebody amend the rules to say the popular vote counts? If not, I think

the pledged delegates matter more.

[AZBlue]

74. Read my lips: Popular. Vote. Doesn't. Count.

It's not set up that way. If you don't like that, work for change...in the next election. This one stands as it is. Give up this stupid meme.

[hell-bent]

85. Well, how do you think the SDs

will look at that? A candidate wins more votes in a secret ballot, and the other candidate gets more delegates. Hey, Stalin would be pleased with this system.

[AZBlue]

94. In any process that includes caucuses, there's no way to know who has more votes.

That "Popular Vote" meme is false as long as there are caucuses.

[Gore1FL]

77. Pledged delegates takes into account poular vote

and more importantly, they take into account the Democratic vot in past elections.

Simply counting the pop vote discounts caucus states--currently even doing that puts Obama ahead.

[livingmadness]

81. Enough shoulda, woulda, coulda's

Here's how its going to happen ...

Clinton will eek out a small victory in PA
She'll be hammered in NC
Obama will win Indiana

Between now and then enough super-delegates will endorse Obama that his pledged delegates from those 3 races will put him over the threshold.

Game over, Obama is the president elect, MI and Florida seated at the convention, easy!

Can't wait.

[chascarrillo]

83. Repeat after me: "There is no national popular vote."

[hell-bent]

86. Repeat after me: "Caucuses are undemocratic."

They discriminate against working people, the disabled, and the elderly voters who don't wish to come out at night in bad weather and argue with some immature zealots. Obama wins Wyoming with what: 2,067 votes? Real democracy in action. Now, of course those elderly voters would make some good Soylent Green, right? :evilgrin:

[chascarrillo]

90. Still no national popular vote

[BlooInBloo]

96. The losers typically complain about the rules, even though they were well-understood...

... going into it.

Funny how losing does that to people.

[stillcool]

87. Which should matter more..

rules, or rules you make up as you go along?

[JoFerret]

91. Popular vote imo

and delegates should pay attention to that.

If the GE of 2000 taught us anything it was surely that.

[sniffa]

92. Delegates, but don't sweat the Popular vote thing

Hillary won't come close to catching him.

[tammywammy]

95. delegates

That's how this system was set up from the beginning. You shouldn't change the rules in the middle of the game.

[bigwillq]

98. Popular vote

on edit: They need to change that but too late to do it now.
The people's vote should matter above all else..and I am not a big fan of the supers either.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

102. The popular vote is the will of the people!

[newmajority]

104. "So, counting Florida and Michigan......"

Florida and Michigan don't count.

Maybe next time certain party operatives won't try to swindle their states into a more prominent role in a forced early coronation.

Which, as it turns out, was canceled anyway, because the people didn't buy Hillary's "inevitability" after all.

[HooptieWagon]

106. Pledged delegates are - isn't that the rules that the candidates agreed to?

You can't change the rules mid-game just because one team thinks it will help her. Everyone will recognize that for the BS it is. If the DNC decides that popular vote better expresses the will of the people, then they should change it... next time.

[tritsofme]

108. There is no rule that says the pledged delegate leader must be the nominee.

If you can find it please forward it to me.

[HooptieWagon]

109. Where is the rule that popular or electorial votes count?

If you can find it, please forward to me.

[tritsofme]

110. That's my entire point.

Popular vote or electoral vote is no more arbitrary than a nominal pledged delegate lead.

In this contest its 2024 or bust, and whoever makes the most compelling case to the SDs wins.

[HooptieWagon]

111. OK, then why have ANY vote

if the SDs are the "Supreme Court" of the Democratic primary? Why waste the resources? Why not just let the SDs decide in smoke-filled rooms as was done in the past? The SDs MUST look to the PDs as guidance, otherwise everyone who voted to determine the PDs has been disenfranchised. Hilliary only seems to have a problem with "disenfranchised voters" when they voted for her early and broke party rules.

[tritsofme]

112. When the pledged delegate count starts to diverge from other, more respresentative measures of the

vote, then it becomes relevant to look at those as well.

If Hillary and Obama split pledged delegates and the popular vote for example, SDs will have to decide which measure better reflects the will of the People and who deserves the nomination.

[HooptieWagon]

113. So, despite being a contest for delegates,

the SDs are supposed to ignore the PDs and vote enmass for the losing candidate. Sure sounds like a winning strategy to me :sarcasm: ... but then, all of Hilliary's other strategies have been more about whining than winning, and destroying the Party so the DLC can take control and arrange her coronation in 2012 - right?

[tritsofme]

115. More than any single thing, it is a contest to get to 2024.

Neither candidate can get there on pledged delegates alone.

Despite your protests, there is no rule that makes the nominal pledged delegate leader the automatic nominee.

If Hillary is able to lead in popular votes, if she is the choice of the People instead of 50+ different delegate selection processes, then she probably has the stronger moral claim to the nomination.

If Obama leads in both variables, the nomination should be his.

[HooptieWagon]

123. Uh, OK

"If Hillary is able to lead in popular votes, if she is the choice of the People instead of 50+ different delegate selection processes, then she probably has the stronger moral claim to the nomination."

Where is this rule? What moral claim? I guess under Clinton morals it makes sense, but what moral standing do "Clinton morals" have? I'm not buying the Clinton "logic" that after electing delegates they should be overturned by a "Supreme Court". Been there already with an incompetent corporatist "selectee"... don't need W2.0

[democrattotheend]

116. Did you give Obama the Michigan uncommitteds?

I think that's only fair, if you are going to count it, since everyone who voted uncommitted was specifically casting a vote against hillary.

[PseudoIntellect]

120. Pledged delegates are actually the best way to measure popular will in our current

Since we have both caucuses and primaries, no popular vote total in the primary will accurately show the will of the people. Understand? We'd need 100% primaries or 100% caucuses for the popular vote to mean anything in the primaries. Regardless, Obama leads officially by about 717,000 in the popular vote, so don't give me the bull about Clinton being within 100,000. That's including unconstitutional elections and NOT including IA, NV, ME, and WA. How convenient for you.

[Blondiegrrl]

121. LOL! Hillary supporters trying to change the rules again.

1. The primary election outcome is based on PLEDGED DELEGATES. That is HOW THIS WORKS.

2. Michigan and Florida knowingly broke the rules. The held early elections KNOWING THEIR VOTES WOULD NOT COUNT FOR SHIT. They made their bed; now they have to lie in it. That is the fault of those two states, not the DNC or Obama.

3. Even if you wanted to retroactively count the popular votes from Florida and Michigan, how would you be able to accurately count Michigan's results when Obama's name WASN'T EVEN ON THE FUCKING BALLOT?

:eyes:

[last_texas_dem]

122. I don't get it

The premise of your post seems to be that superdelegates should take into account the most accurate expression of the "popular will" in deciding which candidate to support. But the superdelegates themselves are a decidedly undemocratic feature of the process, so why would they even bother with trying to base their decisions on the popular will? Also, because of the different rules governing who can vote in the primaries of different states, looking at the accumulated "popular vote" is hardly an accurate measure of Democratic sentiment nationwide.

To me, it's the delegates that matter the most, simply because that is how the Democratic nominee is determined. The process is hardly democratic, anyway. Some states have open primaries, some have closed primaries, some have caucuses, some have caucuses and primaries, some have delegates that (at least at this point) aren't going to be seated, etc. And then there are the superdelegates which are the least democratic aspect of the process. The process is a mess that needs a major overhaul, but I can't see how superdelegates looking at the popular vote instead of the pledged delegates would remedy any of these problems.