MyDD :: Popular vote is not the deciding factor

Popular vote is not the deciding factor

by wasder, Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:40:04 PM EST

Why is it that day after day we are bombarded with front page threads like today's from Jerome, hashing out the various permutations of the popular vote?

First of all, there is no way to accurately count the popular vote in the Democratic nominating process. Given the fact that many of the caucus states don't report their totals, and that Obama was not on the ballot in MI (in anticipation of the "he took his name off himself" comments I will say that why he took his name off the ballot doesn't have anything to do with the fact that nonetheless you can't count Michigan's popular vote accurately) popular vote is not something that can be used to fairly decide the nomination, nor was it ever something that was being considered as being relevant to the outcome going in.

In fact, in Jerome's post there is lots of talk about how Obama is winning in 4 of the 6 ways of measuring but that Hillary might be able to overcome him in two of these with a big win in PR. That right there tells you that this is an absurd way of measuring who should be the nominee. Should we split the nomination into six?

Like it or not, we have a system of representative democracy in which popular vote does not technically count, in terms of how it represents the final outcome. In every election we select delegates who vote on our behalf. The popular vote, while reflective of the will of the people generally, is relegated to a secondary factor. MyDD poster Professor Reo responded to Jerome's post by saying that us Democrats would have been thrilled to win the presidency in 2004 had Ohio gone our way, despite the fact that Bush won by 3 million votes overall.

So why oh why do we keep seeing Jerome and others agonizing over the various permutations of the mythic, impossible to accurately tabulate, popular vote?

Permalink :: 16 Comments :: Post a Comment

Questions? Comments? Concerns?

by wasder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:40:36 PM EST

People are the basis of a government's legitimacy (none / 0)

Only the truly clueless would ask a question like that.

Thats all I can say.

>So why oh why do we keep seeing Jerome and others agonizing over the various permutations of the mythic, impossible to accurately tabulate, popular vote?

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money

by architek on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:42:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: People are the basis of a government's legitim (2.00 / 1)

I am clueless because I am arguing in favor of deciding the nomination by the rules that were agreed to going in? That is ridiculous on its face. Not to mention the fact that you don't respond to what I was saying about the popular vote being impossible to verify in this case.

by wasder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:45:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OBAMA wins if the CAUCUS votes are included! (none / 0)

Voters who cast their ballots in caucus states should be counted too!

If the tally includes CAUCUS VOTERS then OBAMA wins overall in the popular vote, too!

by MS on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:45:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by neonplaque on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:42:05 PM EST

I suppose that ...... (none / 0)

the efforts to keep the popular vote in the forefront of folks minds would be because it's important to note who folks voted for.

The margin is slim, as noted in Jerome's diary, for both candidates depending on how you 'count' or 'discard' the votes actually cast by the people.

If folks don't 'get' that fact, then there's no hope for a real 'uniting' in the GE.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:50:04 PM EST

Re: I suppose that ...... (2.00 / 1)

Of course I "get" the importance of noting who people voted for but as a way of deciding the nomination its not valid. Its a close election. Close elections always leave one side upset and frustrated. There is no way around it. But floating the popular vote as a way to suggest that Hillary Clinton should get the nomination is disingenuous at the very best.

by wasder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:58:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just because. (none / 0)

Because by THAT metric, Hillary Clinton can still claim that this is a contest. That there's ANY earthly reason for her to stay in this race.

Now, as to why any other thinking person is buying into it . . . that I can't tell you. I guess Clinton supporters have gotten on board with the 'win at any and all costs' meme.

It's a political ploy, nothing more. Like 'caucus states don't matter' and 'red states don't matter'. It's Florida and Michigan. It's changing the rules after the fact so that Clinton can win. Or at least pretend it's a tie. It's public relations.

by EvilAsh on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:56:15 PM EST

It is all they have left.

They are clinging to it like a frightened child might cling to a teddy bear.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:58:28 PM EST

The popular vote ISN'T EVEN OFFICIALLY TABULATED. This is a delegate race.

That's why the Clintons are able to get away with all of these shenanigans:

"Hillary is ahead in the popular vote for states that begin with the letter P", etc.

Trying to change the subject to the popular vote isn't working. It's like playing a football game and then claiming "Woo! We won because we got more field goals.."

http://hillaryis404.org

by baghdadjoe on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:11:00 PM EST

Preaching to the converted, but I love your Hillary is 404 page.

by wasder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:41:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wish some HRC supporters would get into the specifics of this with me...

by wasder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:41:52 PM EST

Show me where in the DNC rulebook... (none / 0)

That it says Superdelegates are restricted to considering voting for that candidate who is leading in the delegate count at the end of the primary proces...

Unless you can do so your post is innaccurate...the superdelegates may use whatever criteria they wish in assessing the candidates and their electibility...including the primary populary vote...

by SaveElmer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:15:29 PM EST

Re: Show me where in the DNC rulebook... (none / 0)

I never mentioned anything about what the superdelegates can or can't do. But I am glad at least one HRC supporter came in here to talk specifics.

The superdelegates as I understand it are not under any obligation to vote for the pledged delegate winner. But neither are the obliged to vote for the popular vote winner. As the dem contest is a delegate contest, it seems more likely and more logical that they would go with the pledged delegate leader rather than the popular vote leader but they can do what they want. And they are doing what they want, and moving towards Obama in significant numbers.

by wasder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:23:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Show me where in the DNC rulebook... (none / 0)

But that does not speak to the legitimacy of the popular vote count as a factor in the decision. Just because Superdelegates are mistakenly IMO not taking that into account, nor what I view as Hillary's superior prospects in November, does not detaract from the idea that it is a legitimate consideration...

by SaveElmer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:15:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Show me where in the DNC rulebook... (none / 0)

How would you propose to determine what the accurate popular vote count is? That's the whole point! There is no way to do it. In Jerome's post this morning he sited 6 different possible ways of tallying the vote with 6 different outcomes. How does that equate to a definitive winner?

This is a close election, but one that has been won by Barack Obama based on the criteria established at the beginning.

In re November prospects, this is also debatable but I am man enough to say that it is possible that Hillary Clinton would be a stronger candidate against McCain than Obama. I disagree with this, but it is certainly a valid thing to argue about. But again it is totally unveribiable, all speculative. Pledged delegates are not speculative.

by wasder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:29:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.