There Is NO Popular Vote

[sandnsea]

I swear to god if you're repeating that shit you're an idiot and insane. You just are.

[dave29]

1. The only way to achieve an accurate popular vote is to have everyone vote on the same day

under the same rules.

Otherwise you are just playing with the numbers to suit your fancy.

[Oregone]

5. With the same weather, media attention, candidate visits, money invested in each region, poll access

etc...

As well as same dirty tricks, voter roll purging, robo calling, voter suppression techniques.

You need homogeneous turnout to have a meaningful popular votes. Delegates solve this problem.

[Muttocracy]

10. yep. nt

[housewolf]

2. There IS a popular vote... it's just that it's used to tell the states how to vote

In primary elections & caucuses, it's used to tell the states' Democratic & Republican Parties how to allocate the delegates they have been granted.

In the general elelctions, is't used to tell the states' electors how to vote. The electors then go to Washington in December and cast their votes, and that is when the President is actually elected, not on the first Tuesday in November.

We have a representational democracy, not a direct democracy. For presidential elections, the only purpose of our votes is to direct our representatives at the state level on how to vote.

That's why it's possible, and it has happened, that the presedential candidate who's won the larger popular vote but who loses the electoral vote, loses the presidency. The winner is based on the electoral votes, not the popular vote. In primaries, the winner is based on delegate counts, not the popular vote.

[sandnsea]

6. No. There is not a popular vote

That's the reason some states don't even count the number of people who caucus, because it doesn't matter. The caucus isn't representative of the number of voters in the state. It's party activists choosing the party nominee.

[housewolf]

7. Right... when it comes to primary elections the popular vote only counts in those states

that count them by using primary elections.

It's up to each state what method they use to apportion delegates to the national conventions. That's why some use a primary election (which apportions by way of the popular vote) and others use primaries (which apportion based on the will of caucus-goers). A state party could decide to use some other method if it chose, it's up to the state parties.

[Exilednight]

14. No, in some caucus states there is no popular vote. You can walk in and .........

they take a first round ballot, but that person may be eliminated when it's time to take the final count. If your candidate gets less than 15% support, they get zero in the vote count and you would be forced to either choose someone who has reached the 15% threshold, or you will not be counted at all.

Not all caucuses are run the same way, some will count votes for less than 15%, but several don't since DNC rules dictate that a candidate must get 15% support in any primary or caucus to be awarded any delegates.



In theory, you could have a primary with 10 candidates where one will win the popular vote with 14%, but no one would be awarded a single delegate since they didn't break the threshold.

[Middle finga]

3. What an asinine argument... How the hell can you get a truly popular

vote from Democratic voters when you have states with Open Primaries, Caucuses, Rush's Operation Chaos Campaign, etc. Hillary and her supporters need to squash that nonsense. I've never seen a candidate carry on like Hillary, it's really pathetic.

[LTR]

4. Anyone who keeps pounding the popular vote meme in the primaries...

...should not be counted upon as any kind of expert regarding politics.

And if the PV did mean anything, then caucus states such as Iowa should be factored in. Cherry-picking statistics only makes one look stupid. Or at least look like a Republican.

[LiberalFighter]

9. Isn't that what ALL the political pundits (experts) do? Someone should shoot them all! n/t

[Major Hogwash]

8. We have always believed that there was a popular vote. And a Santa Claus.

And an Easter Bunny.
Now, you're taking away our popular vote!?!
Damn you, sandnsea!

*leans back in chair and shakes fist at ceiling*

ala John Stewart.

[Swamp Rat]

11. COWNT AL THE VOTES!1

SHE ONE PORTA REEKA!11

[Shakespeare]

12. Not idiotic so much as it is deliberately disingenuous.

I'm sick of it, too.

[KittyWampus]

13. Oh, FUCK ME! You know how many threads I started trying to get this point across

it is annoying, wrong, deceptive, unAmerican.

[Buzz Clik]

15. Get used to it. August is a long way off.

[L0oniX]

16. Yea ..lets redo the caucus states so we can count the votes....pffft

[psychmommy]

17. agreed

but that is all clinton has. how can the msm hype the primaries if they don't have an angle. it's a false angle. but it's all they have.

[AZBlue]

18. K/R

Nothing more to say really - that sums it up perfectly.

[shanine]

19. K&R

[krawhitham]

20. YES THERE IS (Popular Vote)

is just does not count for anything

[sandnsea]

22. NO. There is not

NO. Go back and read the thread about how caucuses are conducted. There IS NOT a popular vote because every state nominates there delegates according to their own rules. Some states didn't even count a popular vote. If you show up and your candidate isn't viable, you leave or move to a different candidate. If you show up in a precinct for Hillary, and she isn't viable, you might move to Obama. Should that person be a popular vote for Obama?? There is NO popular vote because caucuses don't allow for it. It's always been a big stinky load.

[Joe Chi Minh]

21. On the other haand, if they wanted to enshrine proportional representation in the

Constitution....! But that is the last thing they would want to do. The very last. It would be permanent "curtains" for the right wing!

[Erin Elizabeth]

23. Just saw Ickes on TV yelling about it.

I guess it's the only hope they have left, but that's just not how this thing works. And they were FINE with how it works until she started losing.

[Major Hogwash]

24. This is why Ickes is dangerous to the Democratic party.

He always gets on tv.

[Erin Elizabeth]

26. That's the first time I've ever heard him speak

and he sounded like a huge freaking idiot.

[depakid]

25. There's only the electoral college

Popular vote doesn't matter.

Nor do "historical firsts" about the Democratic nominee.

[kid a]

27. k & R - for the sake of sanity

[Liberal Veteran]

28. Oh you and your elitist FACTS!

[Adelante]

29. There is none relevant to a primary race

It's the looniest thing I've ever heard of. Really, Clinton supporters are falling for a plain sham.

[senseandsensibility]

30. kick

Even some Obama supporters are repeating it. Sheesh. I blame the corporate media, who have bought this line and are running with it.

[ImpeechBush]

31. Now that Clinton appears to be winning it it has disappeared!

Let's see. Nope. No popular vote there. Check under the bureau. Ugh, dust devils but no popular vote. How about behind the door? Nope. Check under the sink. Any luck?

Now I know there used to be a popular vote because I remember when the Obama supporters were saying that the superdelegate vote should reflect the popular vote. So there must have been one then -- a couple months ago or so. Whatever could have happened to it?

Could we have loaned it out to someone and they never returned it? Wait, I'll go check the garage...

[sandnsea]

32. No, Obama supporters never said that, not ever

What is wrong with people. Why do you think you can make shit up and not get called on it?

The pledged delegate vote, as determined by the people. THAT is what Obama supporters have always said.

Reread the OP. It clearly applies to you.

[ImpeechBush]

33. Thanks for clearing that up! Oh, and it's not in the garage either...

"SUPERDELEGATE should reflect the Voters Choice"
"Why has Obama received so many less superdelegates than Clinton? Shouldn't the voters decide this?"
http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/kathye100/blog/&blogId=1509

"1. Superdelegates should vote whoever won their state’s primary or caucus. This is an approach the Obama campaign has argued for. "
http://samspencer.org/?page_id=42

"First, superdelegates should respect the popular will of Democratic primary voters and caucus goers."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/15/161956/733/23/457629

"But Barack Obama is challenging her hold on the superdelegate vote, arguing, above all else, that they shouldn’t defy the wishes of "the people," as they have expressed themselves in the primaries and caucuses. The superdelegates, he insists, should ratify the voices of the voters, rather than correct or control them."
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/knippenberg/08/majority.html

Obama quoted: "My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the county, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters," he said at an avail just now."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Superdelegates_and_metadelegates.html

Wait, I know, check the cellar, over by the water heater.

[sandnsea]

38. Primary Voters and Caucus Goers

who were electing delegates - which everybody knows except for Hillary's delusional campaign.

[ImpeechBush]

45. So when Obama welcomed superdelegate Byrd, was it because

of the WVa primary or the caucus reflecting the .. uh.. "Will of the People"?

[sandnsea]

46. Superdelegates are required to win

Even Hillary admits that. What the hell are you talking about?

And, by the way, as far as I'm concerned, after Tuesday proves Obama has the pledged delegate vote - EVERY superdelegate should switch their vote to the winner of the vote of the people. Get it??

[ImpeechBush]

48. So it has nothing to do with the Will of the People, just winning

Hey, ok, that's politics as it usually is. I can handle that, whoever ends up with the nomination. Just skip all the lies and the lectures. And the pretentiousness too. Just distill it down to "I want my candidate to win at all costs". Who doesn't? No problem.

[sandnsea]

50. The pledged delegates reflect the vote of the people

If you refuse to accept that very basic principle, see the OP again.

[ImpeechBush]

52. If that's what Obama says, then of course it must be true

even if Hillary is way ahead in the popular vote. After all, those are just voters, whereas pledged delegates are like "pledged" and therefore know what the people are thinking better than just "voters".

I'm starting to get it. Maybe another glass of Koolaide would help. I see you have plenty there to share.

[sandnsea]

54. That's what all the states electing delegates say

That's what we've been doing for decades. States elect delegates to go to the national convention and choose our nominee. Used to be the state party bosses decided. Now we have caucuses and direct primaries to choose the delegates. That's what we've been doing. Maybe if Hillary had known that, she wouldn't have lost the nomination.

[Beacool]

34. So, I guess when Gore was repeating that "shit" in 2000

he was an idiot and insane.

[mystieus]

35. Its different in the fact Obama has never lost the popular vote.

[sandnsea]

40. No. There is no popular vote. It doesn't exist.

The general election one person, one vote. Every state.

That is not what we just did. Each state decided how they would pick their delegates. In caucus states, if someone found their candidate wasn't viable, they might have left. The structure of the caucus doesn't allow for a popular vote. Some states don't even count how many show up because of that. There is no popular vote, never has been. The GE has nothing to do with it.

[sandnsea]

37. Case proven

You. You are one of the ones I'm talking about. The 50 state Presidential electoral college election has got NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

[ImpeechBush]

49. There is no elephant in the middle of the room

Obviously you haven't had enough Kool Aide yet

[IsItJustMe]

36. Just like pushing the Iraq war, our corporate msm whores push another lie, the popular vote, in

order to create the illusion that there has been a fierce battle under way for the Democratic nominee.

They are whores who will sell their children out to the highest bidder. If you don't know that by now, given the last seven plus years, and the fact that we have a Faux news network in this country, then brothers and sisters, I can't help you.

[BzaDem]

39. Too bad that so few people agree with you that you actually have to post this.

Nice try.

[Yotun]

41. Actually its the minority who are buying into Clinton's electoral fraud. But feel free to explain

Why is the popular vote meaningful in any way whatsoever?

[sandnsea]

43. If there were a popular vote

It would be meaningful. But because caucuses do not measure the popular vote due to viability issues, there is no real popular vote. It's pure phoniness.

[LiberalAndProud]

42. I won the not popular vote once. Didn't even try.

[RNdaSilva]

44. Why is that such a difficult, but simple, concept to grasp?

That was a rhetorical question...already know the answer but prefer not to embarrass.

In the primaries it is the delegate count that matters. (Ask Hillary on Wednesday)

In the general election it is the Electoral College count that matters. (Ask Al Gore)

Votes select pledged candidates (more or less) and electors.

I for one would prefer a constitutional amendment repealing the Electoral College...not going to happen.

In short, yeah, there is NO popular vote in the primaries.

[me b zola]

47. K&R

[mrbluto]

51. I agree - this is why we have delegates.

And this is why delegates should be chosen not just for loyalty to a candidate, but also for their intelligence, understanding of issues, and commitment to the objectives of the Democratic party. (and by extension what's good for the country.)

To choose delegates based mainly on their commitment to a particular candidate is not a good idea.

Why?

Because the delegates might have to deliberate and negotiate amongst themselves to choose a nominee in a brokered convention. If the first vote of delegates doesn't provide a clear winner it goes to a brokered convention. We could have a real one, where the delegates get down to brass tacks and choose a satisfactory course, or one where there is simply extortion on the part of a plurality versus a negligibly smaller near-plurality.

I'll save some people some time and come right out and say that I advocate that neither of the current candidates is the best choice for the nomination.

I believe the best move for the Democratic party is to pick a third person as a unity candidate, have Obama as VP to set him up for 2016, and give Hillary a seat on the supreme court. (it's a very nice consolation prize, and it ensures she never runs for president again - it would be just too fraught for her to run again.)

Obama gets a bit more seasoning - and time for more racists to die off by the time he runs in 2016.

Hillary gets the prestige and influence in a way that would be uncontroversial amongst Democrats. (admit it - she make a fine addition to the supreme court - choice would be safe, and corps would shiver in their boots just a bit more.)

Republican voters don't get to use race or gender as an excuse to support McSaine.

Democrats get a sweep.

The country gets sane leadership.

The world sighs in relief.

What's so bad about that scenario?

Do I want president Hillary? Not especially.

Do I think she deserves to be pilloried and cast as evil? No

Do I want President Obama? If it looks like it's going to tear apart the party (whether people vote for him or not they're going to remember how this all came to pass.) then I want Obama in 2016.

I'll come right out and say I think an Edwards/Obama ticket w/Hillary on the SCOTUS is the optimal scenario under current conditions.

What's so bad about that scenario?

When you respond, please don't just tell me it's impossible. Tell me why, and what's better (and why).

[Yotun]

53. OK, this is it- IF YOU ARE USING THE POPULAR VOTE TO ARGUE FOR ANYTHING YOU ARE STUPID!!! FACT!!!

No seriously! You are an idiot. The reason why the popular vote is meaningless is 100% logic proof. Its as absolute as 2+2=4. If you can't grasp this simple concept, you are a fucking idiot. Just TRY to understand just for a second WHY that is, before you try to get all agressive. Try to think about it for just 1 minute and run the facts through your head.

[DesEtoiles]

55. .

[jespwrs]

56. Iike this guy's little breakdown of things...

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/popular-vote-question.php

[GoldieAZ49]

57. oh! so Gore didn't win the popular vote in 2000

Thanks, I didn't realize it was just propaganda.


I guess all the rest of the 2000 'outrage' was BS too, eh?

[barack the house]

58. There is a vote FOR delegates not candidates. You could say popular delegates.