A Challenge, Call, Plea for a serious dialog with candidate supporters: criteria for nomination

[Political Heretic]

I would like to try and have a reasonable discussion about who should get the Democratic Nomination. In doing so, I promise I will say some things that other Obama supporters may disagree with, and some things that other Clinton supporters may disagree with. But I really want to explain a few things. I want to explain why I believe that if certain conditions are met, then the person who has met those conditions should be the nominee – and then I would like feedback. I would like to hear if someone really thinks my reasoning process is faulty and why.

To facilitate this discussion, I’m purging my ignore list. That’s right. I’m starting fresh as of today. All I ask is that we have a civil discussion. I vow that I will not, at any point, personally attack or insult any candidate. I also vow to clearly distinguish factual information that is quantifiable from personal opinion which is not.

Let’s begin.

This will please most Obama supporters: I believe that if one candidate wins both the most pledged delegates and the most popular vote, then that person should be our nominee and no other factors should be relevant.

This will please most Clinton supporters: if there was actually a situation where there was a split, and one candidate won the most pledged delegates and the other candidate won the most popular vote I would be very torn and concerned and uncertain about how that should be resolved. I can not immediately make a case for one candidate over the other in that case.

Now I’d like to explain why I feel this way on both counts:

A:
If one candidate wins both the most pledged delegates and the popular vote, the reason I believe that candidate should be the nominee is because those are the only two quantifiable measures I am aware of that have ever “counted” in the Democratic primary process. Quantifiable, remember, means objectively measurable – there is a specific absolute result that can be measured. You either win the most pledged delegates, or you don’t. You either win the popular vote or you don’t.

Now, let’s think about what it would really mean for a candidate who did not win the most pledged delegates and did not win the most popular vote to receive the nomination. In order for that to occur, the quantifiable measurements for victory would have to be ignored in favor of qualitative opinion. Qualitative, meaning experiential, not able to be objectively measured – in this case, opinion.

The trouble with qualitative opinion is when there is no consensus. Why should the opinion of some political experts count more than other political experts. Some experts make the qualitative (opinion) claim that Clinton is less electable. Why should their opinion be seen as more important than, other experts who give the qualitative (opinion) claim that Obama is less electable? Some superdelegates believe that Clinton has shown more ability to win “important” states. Why is that opinion more important than the opinion of other supderdelegates who believe that primary results are not comparable to general election contests between a Republican and a Democrat?

Is it not concerning to anyone if we were to throw out the only quantifiable, objective measurements for victory in favor of opinion, theory, guess work, hunches or other non-measurable rubrics? Is there actually anyone who seriously believes the pledged delegate and popular vote winner should not receive the nomination?

B:
If one candidate wins the most pledged delegates and one candidate wins the popular vote, this would be the most difficult predicament. And is there any Obama supporter who can really honestly say that he / she would not be at least a little bit “troubled” about selecting a nominee with such a split? Or a Clinton supporter? I know I am troubled by it.

Unfortunately, due to recent campaign comments, we have to define what we mean by the popular vote. Can anyone really say that Michigan’s popular vote ought to be counted “as is” when other candidate names did not even appear on the ballot – after Clinton signed an agreement and went on the record saying that she agreed that MI results would not count? I would like Michigan and Florida to have a say too. But Michigan is particularly problematic. The only realistically fair solution is a complete revote. Does anyone agree with that, and if so, what do you think the most “fair” solution to the Michigan problem would be?

So – assuming that MI and FL get counted in some fair way, and their pledged delegates and popular vote are factored in, we still might end up in a situation where one candidate has both the most pledged delegates and the most popular vote. Or, we might have a situation whether the candidates split those things. If they split it, the difference for me is that I want to find other QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTS for selecting the nominee, NOT more QUALITATIVE opinions! So, looking at which candidate as the most financial competitiveness going into the general is an objective measurement (we can count it up) and seems a really important metric for American political campaigns. Looking and which candidate won the most states is also an objective metric, however I don’t think it tells us much important, so I don’t like that one as much.

What I really don’t like however, is throwing objective measurements aside and letting the intuition and opinion of SOME be what decides a nominee. Does that not bother anyone else?

While a split between popular vote and pledged delegates would bother me, I believe that I would defer to the person who won the most pledged delegates? Why, is it because I am an Obama supporter. No, its because to my knowledge this has always been the measurement used to pick nominees, not the popular vote. Thus, because that seems to be most “by the rules” I support it. Having said that, I’m interested in seeing many of the rules around primary processes change in the future. But I don’t believe in changing them mid-stream just to suit someone’s political purposes.

Does anyone disagree that quantitative measurements are superior to non-consensus qualitative opinion?

Does anyone disagree that if one person won both the most pledged delegates and the most popular vote should be the nominee? If not, why not? Try to be detailed, because it’s mind-boggling to me.

Does anyone dispute my assertion that pledged delegates has been the historical criteria used to determine the nominee winner?

To those who feel popular vote and not pledged delegates should decide the nominee this year, what is your proposal for dealing with MI and FL, since Clinton at least is counting on some interesting “math” factoring in those states in order to maintain much hope of a popular vote victory?

I welcome feedback and discussion.

[BlooInBloo]

1. "What I really don’t like however, is throwing objective measurements aside..."

"... and letting the intuition and opinion of SOME be what decides a nominee. Does that not bother anyone else?

So you don't like the existence of voters in the system? Or are you under the impression that Jane and Joe Q. Voter make extensive use of "objective measurements"?

If you're ok with the voters' subjective assessments being involved, it's hard for me to understand why you're NOT ok with other peoples' subjective assessments being involved.

[Political Heretic]

2. The objective measurements come in how we measure the voting results.

We've chosen the objective measurements of pledged delegates, based on the proportional popular vote and apparently the popular vote - which I am fine with, though I'm not aware of that ever being a factor in measuring the winner of previous democratic nomination processes.

If you want to have an "objective vote" among these "other people" as to "Who is more electable" or some other qualitative question, and then have the majority answer win, then we can talk about that.

EDIT - also I take it from your response about voters, that if one candidate wins both pledged delegates and the popular vote, then that candidate should be the nominee, period?

[BlooInBloo]

3. Don't worry bout my thoughts - too different a starting point from yours...

.... In particular, I would start by doing some research into the exact reasons why the superdelegate system was crafted in the first place (more than 5 minute googling), sift out the good reasons from the bad, and then consider how the situtation/choices addressed the need(s) involved with the system's crafting. &tc.

I just take issue with your having one set of standards for one group of folks, which doesn't seem to apply, for you, to another set of folks. And for no (given) principled reason.

[Political Heretic]

5. I don't see any inconsistency. In fact, I laid out for you a quantifiable way to deal with it.

If you want to have an "objective vote" among these "other people" as to "Who is more electable" or some other qualitative question, and then have the majority answer win, then we can talk about that.

EDIT: wow... I just wrote "laided" ...is that like the past-past tense of laid? I think I may need some sleep.

[RichardRay]

4. I am largely unconvinced by the 'popular vote' argument...

at least in this primary cycle. For that metric to have any meaning we'd need much better practice at polling places, certified voting machines and count procedures, party funded elections in all states, etc., etc. As it stands I don't think the primary vote counts that people are tossing around are more than estimates of what really happened. I suppose that a really strong advantage in the popular vote count (like 2:1 or better) would be meaningful, but with the numbers we're talking abut now I think there's way too much noise.

For now, the pledged delegates are all we've got. Yes, there's noise there, but it's noise we're accustomed to and for which we have controls. One of those controls is the SD's. If there were a way for the SD's to be held to the 'will of the electorate' in any realistic fashion then I'd say their discretion should be limited. Since there's not, and given the history of SD's and what they were created for, I'll go with having them do what they think is best.

[XemaSab]

6. Theoretically, yes, the candidate with the most votes should be the nominee

But Clinton supporters often use Michigan and Florida numbers to make this argument. Also, caucus states are not counted in this metric.

Delegates are ostensibly a measure of popular support, and I think this is the best--nay, the only--way to look at the situation.