Popular Vote Update

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 00:00


Early this morning, I wrote that Clinton currently leads in the popular vote by 19,899 votes. This figure is based upon the bottom line in the current Real Clear Politics count, minus 64,504 uncommited votes in Michigan that, according to exit polls, came from people who indicated they would have supported either John Edwards or Bill Richardson, had those candidates been on the ballot.

However, I now realize that those totals were incorrect. This is because, in Michigan, 27,694 votes were not counted because they wrote in a candidate. When, in accordance with exit polls, 72.9167% of those votes are allocated to Obama, that puts another 20,194 votes in his column. According to the broadest possible definition of one-person, one-vote, this gives Obama an almost comically narrow lead of 357 votes heading into tomorrow's primaries.

Of course, since we are dealing with estimates on the Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington vote totals, and since we are also dealing with estimates on the Michigan uncommitted and discarded vote totals, there is a margin of error in these estimates. Specifically, there is about a 3% margin of error in either direction among the estimated votes, since we are dealing with exit polls and the vagaries of the delegate selection process in the four caucus states. A 3% margin of error on the estimated 750,000 votes from these states gives a margin of error range of 22,500 votes in either direction. So, in order for there to be no doubt as to who won the popular vote, it will be necessary for Obama to win tomorrow's primaries by 22,143 votes.

For the sake of rounding, let's say 25,000 is the ultimate, "no doubt" popular victory threshold. This means that Obama needs to win tomorrow's primaries by 24,643 votes in order to definitively declare that he is the popular vote winner. Tomorrow night, while live-blogging returns, I'll provide updates on whether or not Obama will reach that threshold. No matter what happens, there is no definitive way to prove that Clinton won the popular vote. Also, as I indicated last night, the difficulty in determining the popular vote winner speaks to a lack of democracy in the process that needs to be reformed in advance of 2012 and other upcoming nomination campaigns.

What sort of reforms do we need? I say we go with the California Plan, abolish caucuses, and increase the number of delegates to about 6,000. Altogether, these reforms would be the most democratic system possible that still maintains a staggered primary calendar and a delegate-based convention. I'll have more on reforming the process soon.  

Chris Bowers :: Popular Vote Update

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Popular Vote Update | 50 comments
in defense of caucuses (4.00 / 4)
I like your analysis, but I disagree with your proposed solution. Caucuses are democracy in action. They are people-powered politics. They get ordinary people involved and energized. They are tradition and culture.

Please explain what the harm is in not being able to determine the precise popular vote totals, and then we can weigh that against the harm caused by forcing State parties to conform to a national standard.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

Thanks (0.00 / 0)
I was just going to say that. You wrote it better than I would have so I'm glad you beat me to it.  
[ Parent ]
Caucuses (4.00 / 2)
(1) Less people vote.
(2) More egregiously, there is a selection bias involved in who does and does not vote.  Night-shift workers, poor people without transport, moonlighters, and elderly who don't leave the home at night are all disenfranchised, as  are people who are too shy to stand  up in a group and declare their support (ESPECIALLY when the group is mostly behind somebody  else).  That really, really sucks and this factor alone must absolutely exclude caucuses as the best way of electing candidates.  States hold caucuses because they're cheap, no other reason, and that one is just not good enough.
(3) People figured out thousands of years ago that a secret ballot is more democratic than a system where votes are declared publicly.  Lots of voters get intimidated and drawn onto local bandwagons.  Historically, caucuses are not reliable predictors of elections in other similarly-situated states.
(4) Caucuses tend to be more private, less official/authoritarian, which increases the chances for outright cheating and intimidation in bad cases.

They reward fired-up activists, and there's something to be said for that, but it comes nowhere close to outweighing all of the above.  If we're going to reform the process,  which we must, scrapping caucuses for good should be a starting point.

On another note, I like the California  plan OK,  but why backload?  Why not even-load?  My plan would be to divide the 50 states into 5 groups, by population, e.g., the 10 most populous states, #11-20, etc.  Hold 10 primary election dates, one every 3 weeks starting early in January, and for each date feature one randomly-selected* state from each population group.  Work D.C. and the territories in wherever.

*The selections and schedule should be set up about six months in advance, so that if the candidates are going to continue to insist on two-to-three-year primary campaigns, at least we won't help them prolong it  all by highlighting way in advance where they should go. Effectively the first couple of years, for the early-starters,  would be a national campaign, and any candidate who didn't want to start early probably wouldn't be too discombobulated by waiting until the schedule was set.

[ Parent ]
it's amazing (4.00 / 5)
for people to just blithely dismiss caucuses when the Texas Democratic party now has 650,000 new voter contacts they can use, for example.  When Nevada has 100,000.  When Colorado and Minnesota and Iowa and all sorts of swing states have detailed information on hundreds of thousands, nay millions, of dedicated voters that they can turn into volunteers.

Party building works.  Don't throw it in the garbage because of all the other inherent flaws in the system.

Insert shameless blog promotion here.

[ Parent ]
and most of these flaws aren't even inherent (4.00 / 3)
For instance, straw poll caucuses like you find in Minnesota and Colorado have secret paper ballots.  You can make caucuses better and more democratic without killing the party building aspects of them.  We needn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
[ Parent ]
No Secret Straw Polls in Colorado (4.00 / 1)
In my precinct, anyway.

We took a straw poll, to see what the general level of support for each of the candidates. We had 92 people in my precinct; last time it was ten. Hillary had barely made the 15% threshold of viability in the straw poll; she picked up two votes in the real poll. Results: 4 Obama delegates, 1 for Hillary.

Personally, I like a hybrid system -- a party building caucus, followed by a primary election. Half the delegates from each, but not on the same day like Texas.  

[ Parent ]
oops, my bad (0.00 / 0)
I thought they had a paper ballot straw poll system in Colorado for their caucuses.  Guess not.  But they probably should!
[ Parent ]
"Primary at the caucus" (4.00 / 1)
Here in Minnesota we do what's called something like "primary at the caucus". Everyone votes on a paper 'ballot' (just write the name of the candidate on a piece of paper; this could definitely be improved) and when that's more or less finished they start discussing local issues and electing precinct delegates and officials and whatnot.

You get the benefit of party building and the only real downside from those listed above is the short window for voting. I think ours was something like 6-8 or 6-9 this year.

[ Parent ]
ugh (0.00 / 0)
Party building works.  Don't throw it in the garbage because of all the other inherent flaws in the system.

Since one of the "inherent flaws" is systemic disenfranchisement and exclusion, I don't really care about the party building aspects.  At the end of the day, its just a question of democratic principles.  You either believe in designing a system that best facilitates inclusion and participation or you do not.

Open primaries serve a very important party-building function anyway since they can attract new voters en masse into party politics.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

[ Parent ]
some mitigating factors (0.00 / 0)
Good points; here are some mitigating factors:
(1) A smaller, more activist core of primary voters is a good thing is some ways.
(2) Not all caucuses are at night. Caucuses in my state (WA) were held during the day on a Saturday. Transportation issues are are problem for primaries too. Many people choose not to vote rather than sending in a mail-in ballot.
(3) Obviously, it depends what you mean by "democratic."
(4) What one person calls intimidation another person might call fair discourse. As for actual intimidation (threats, etc.), I'm not a seasoned caucus veteran, but my understanding is that it is extremely rare. And besides, that's what the police are for.


States hold caucuses because they're cheap, no other reason, and that one is just not good enough.

That is false and rather offensive. I listed several reasons why people like caucuses. Here in Washington, I think our caucuses are quite popular. Iowa too, I hear. (understatement)

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
[ Parent ]
In Maine, I've always voted via (0.00 / 0)
absentee ballot instead of showing up on caucus night, until this year.

You make absentee ballots extremely easy, and you solve most of the problems: basically combining the virtues of the mail-in primary. It's secret (and I found that very jarring at the caucus,  having  to publicly declare for a candidate and separating into the Sharks and the Jets ...), you've got weeks to respond, etc., etc.

[ Parent ]
Love random primaries...not sure about dumping caucuses (0.00 / 0)
Trickster's primary plan is one I have been in support of since before this year's primary began when all the chaos of moving state primaries happened.  A random, population-pooled primary would be the most equitable solution and would ensure long-term party building by forcing the party to gear up the early campaign in different states every four years.

That said, I think caucuses can play an important role and since they are cheap perhaps they could be used in tandem with the primary for little cost.  Every state would have a primary to elect pledged delegates.  But perhaps the process would be preceded by a caucus that would be used to nominate 'super' delegates and allow candidates the opportunity to benefit from building a ground game in the state prior to the wider scaled primary. Unlike the current superdelegates these delegates would be selected by the actual consent of those taking part in the caucus.  Caucuses are important to party building and while the winner of the caucus and the primary in some states may differ, the caucus would be a good metric for judging a candidate's ability to organize and energize rather than just their ability to run ads and profit off name recognition.

I am not sure what the division should be in terms of the proportional power between the two and I am not sure what would happen with the current superdelegates who are unlikely to give up their votes so easily.  A combined system with a rotating primary schedule would not only be equitable, but it would maximize party building that would have to be a boon come the general election, especially if the Republicans keep their current system.

[ Parent ]
Secret ballot (0.00 / 0)
People figured out thousands of years ago that a secret ballot is more democratic than a system where votes are declared publicly.  Lots of voters get intimidated and drawn onto local bandwagons.

I assume then that you're also opposed to vote by mail and absentee voting, which also abandon the idea of the secret ballot and allow opportunities for coercion and bribery?

[ Parent ]
What? (0.00 / 0)
How does vote by mail or absentee voting violate the secret ballot?  People can coerce you in your home or on the street whether you are voting by mail or in person.  The point of the secret ballot is that your preferences aren't announced publicly, and both systems protect that right.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."
[ Parent ]
Vote by mail is not secret (0.00 / 0)
If your boss or your spouse or your pastor or the other members of your sewing circle or the person bribing you wants to make sure you vote the way they want you to, they can't follow you into the voting booth. They can sit down next to you while you fill out your mail-in ballot and make sure it gets mailed. That's the difference.
[ Parent ]
Not to mention INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING (0.00 / 0)
that caucuses partially have with their 15% minimum threshold. We should definitely develop a paper-trail, non-electronic or completely verifiable and auditable balloting system that allows for instant runoff voting so that the true will of the voters will be reflected in the results.

Help support "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film!
[ Parent ]
Not really a fan of IRV (0.00 / 0)
If some people can't navigate their way through a Palm Beach County butterfly ballot, I have sincere doubts about their ability to properly fill out a ballot for IRV.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
True that! n/t (0.00 / 0)


Help support "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film!
[ Parent ]
Quick fixes and whether they solve complex problems (4.00 / 1)
One of the first classes I took was  course in campaign finance  law and party politics.

Why am I bringing that up? Well, here's the thing. I think we can all agree that the system is messed up, but the solutions- are you sure that your idea is the correct one, if so why, etc.

I ask this because the most important thing I learned from that class was a) the real reason politics in this country sucks is that the S Ct said giving money is the equivalent of political speech and b) everytime one tries to reform the mess we have, they seem to make it worse. My thoughts are maybe the changes are just putting lip stick on a pig, and perhaps the more important reforms aren't simply to the nominating process, but to campaign finance and changing it from money take all (didn't someone post today that Obama outspent Clinton 1.6 to 1?) to something approaching ideas/political ability (outside of money raising) etc taking it?

Your ideas maybe wonderful- but they need to address concerns such as the impact of money, the impact of position (ie, first state effect), the impact of demographics, the impact of identity politics, the impact of name recognition, etc. How do you address all of that is a system that's also fair and more democratic?

Good post. (0.00 / 0)
IMO we need to have full public financing of elections similar to what they are doing in Maine and Arizona. That system is realistic to how much political campaigns cost these days but it also makes sure that money isn't coming only from big donors. That would do a whole lot to reform the problems in our primary system. I also think the media has a whole lot of impact. Shouldn't anyone on the primary ballot be invited to debates? I'm not a Kucinich guy but I bet if all the candidates got the same level of media coverage Kucinich would have done better (maybe hitting 5 percent!). Same thing with Dodd and Biden. I'm not saying that the media makes the final difference but for less known candidates it could even things out.

There are a lot of reforms being made. Glad that Chris is starting the discussion! IMO we should do something like what Paul is trying to do with comments but only for comments on this topic.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Iowa is always going to hold a caucus (4.00 / 3)
it's in their freaking constitution. To end caucuses you would need to have a big legal fight and it would royally piss off all of the Democrats in Iowa. It is such a tradition that I would not rule out Tom Harkin resigning from the Senate or something in protest. Likewise it would be very hard to put anyone before New Hampshire.

I think Iowa and New Hampshire should stay first but there should always be two other smallish states to add diversity (Nevada and South Carolina this year, maybe different states each year?)

After that though I think the California Plan would be a good idea. Same with increasing the total number of delegates (not only would that reduce the influence of superdelegeates it would increase the likelihood of more grassroots delegates).

I don't honestly think caucuses are that bad a thing though. Here in Minnesota we had a presidential preference poll the day of the caucus. That not only got people to vote for president it also got them involved in the local party which has done WONDERS locally for the party. Maybe have a presidential primary vote open all day and then the caucuses at night with some kind of way to count the number of votes and some kind of way to let people who couldn't make it participate.

We definitely need reform to the system though. I think that will likely be what Clinton asks for in exchange for campaigning for Obama and honestly I would be quite happy with that.

Looking forward to your future posts on the subject, Chris.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

Iowa and New Hampshire should be First and Second (4.00 / 3)
There is nothing wrong with Iowa and New Hampshire going 1st and 2nd -- the problem is the free-for-all screwed up calendar.

Iowa and New Hampshire know what they are doing, and they take the responsibility seriously. They will fight tooth and nail to preserve their 1st & 2nd position, and there is nothing wrong with that.

What we need is an orderly schedule, and a decent separation between the contests -- the early ones especially. A minimum of one week, ideally two, between IA and NH; followed by second pair one or two weeks later; NV and SC are fine, but South Carolina followed by Michigan would be fine too. Or NV, then SC, followed by MI.

After that, a Super Tuesday, followed by onesies or twosies every week or two. Other than the messed up beginning (including MI & FL jumping the gun) the system worked well -- until the long gap before PA. Six weeks was too much; 3 or 4 weeks should be the max.

My two cents . . .  

[ Parent ]
Sure there is (4.00 / 1)
There is nothing wrong with Iowa and New Hampshire going 1st and 2nd -- the problem is the free-for-all screwed up calendar.

What's wrong is that these states and their party members are given hugely disproportionate influence over the nomination, which is fundamentally inegalitarian.  Why should someone in Iowa have more influence over the nomination than someone in South Dakota?

The only fair system is some kind of rotational system in which a different cross-section of states (small and big, with geographic and demographic balance) get to go before Super Tuesday each cycle.  


John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

[ Parent ]
Exactly right (0.00 / 0)
And... they don't have any minorities in them. Moving Nevada up was at least a step in the right direction.  

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
Somebody Has To Go First (0.00 / 0)
Having it be the same states over and over may not be good, but the reason small states are good at the front end apply whether they are these particular states, in this particular order, or not.

What if Florida and Michigan went early and were counted fully?  How many Michigan or Florida governors or senators would dominate the early primaries strictly because they could score big wins in states with huge delegate counts?

[ Parent ]
there would be no legal fight (0.00 / 0)
If the DNC said, "Delegates must be chosen via primaries, not caucuses," just as they say "there must be a 15% threshhold for delegates" today, what's the legal recourse?

What I'd like to see are caucuses allowed, but only if (a) they record a popular vote total (both initial preference and final) and (b) absentee IRV voting is freely allowed.

Beyond that, rotating schedules are good, and fixing and expanding the public financing is necessary.

[ Parent ]
My understanding (0.00 / 0)
is that it's Iowa law that they must have the first caucus in the nation. So I guess they'd just do what Michigan and Florida did which is hold contests that no one campaigned in.

Agreed on your points. Caucuses are great party builders but they do have a few flaws.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
This indirectly highlights the difference between the two campaigns...plus caucuses (4.00 / 3)
Isn't it interesting that the "popular vote" is this close, for all intents and purposes tied, and yet Obama is, what, 140 pledged delegates in front?  To me, this really speaks to how amazingly capable the Obama people are.  Clinton started with a huge lead and, even though she and her team clearly didn't understand how the system works, he was able to take her down because he was vastly superior to her strategically.  That 140 odd delegates represents the difference in competence.

Also, on caucuses.  In the broadest sense, I see the argument that caucuses are less democratic than primaries in that primaries allow for greater participation by as many people as possible (even though that participation is much more superficial than how your average caucus goer participates in their caucus).  That being said, caucuses are awesome from a party building standpoint.  But that's not my main concern about caucuses.  

Chris, you almost certainly will not agree with this, but I'm not sure that I think that the broadest possible participation in the party's candidate nominating process is necessarily a good thing to the point where we should view it as an end in itself.  I view the nominating contests from the presidency on down as, essentially, an internal organizational decision about who will represent the party in an election to a particular office.  I think it makes sense that those who are invested and committed to the party should have more of a say than a casual voter (like independents in an open primary, or even Republicans!).  

Now, I'm not coming at this from an exclusionary point of view.  I'm not trying to count people out.  Quite the contrary, I think that putting up a few reasonable barriers to participation and then making the participation deeper than just casting a vote would make the party stronger.  

For instance, in Minnesota I think we do it pretty well.  It's really a caucus in name only if you want it to be, or you can stay and actually participate in the platform discussions and so forth.  In order to participate, you have to show up at a given time, register with the party by giving them all your information and publicly declaring, on paper, that you are indeed a Democrat.  Once you've done that, you can mark your ballot for the various offices, turn your vote in and leave or you can stay and participate in the whole shebang.  

I think that is a reasonable system that balances accessibility, party building and at least a minimum commitment to the party to have a say in the process.  

If there were no caucuses... (4.00 / 4)
...Wellstone would never been senator from your state.  He was little known... he made his candidacy viable via the caucus.  He couldn't have afforded it any other way.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
have you checked out poblano's vote (0.00 / 0)
counter? If you check off the variables in his spreadsheet exactly the way you are computing it--including FL, MI Hillary + MI uncommitted by exit poll (which gives 7085 votes to Hillary!), PR and all territories, estimates for IA/NV/WA/ME, but no TX caucus and no non-binding primaries--then Clinton is ahead by 10,688. Unfortunately I don't think he has noted where he got his vote totals from.  
dammit, forgot to include the link (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
however poblano's counter (0.00 / 0)
does not account for the MI write ins, which I do not believe should count, because they were unfortunately never meant to count in the first place.
[ Parent ]
The popular vote was never meant to count either (4.00 / 1)
The popular vote technically has zero validity. But as long as one is using it to make a moral argument, then it's necessary to cast the widest possible net to discern the will of the voters who showed up to express their intent. The uncommitted votes were never meant to count either (hell, nothing about Michigan was ever meant to count), but we should use as much information as we have available. That includes the write-ins.

It's perfectly reasonable that a voter facing a choice between Hillary and uncommitted would choose to write-in Obama or Edwards, even though that write-in vote wouldn't count. For all they knew, their uncommitted vote wouldn't count either.

[ Parent ]
your argument is sound (0.00 / 0)
and your last point convinces me--in this particular situation. But it's still true that even in the absence of a MI clusterfuck, write in votes were not allowed, and barring a change in MI law, we would not be counting them under any other circumstance.
[ Parent ]
Problem is .. (0.00 / 0)
supposedly . 30,000 people wrote in Obama's name(which means they didn't mark uncommitted) .. so I don't see how you can dismiss that(whether MI counts write-ins or not
[ Parent ]
Prefer this analysis (0.00 / 0)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...  

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


I just wrote a diary (0.00 / 0)
Summarizing a book by a mathematician on voting paradoxes.  He didn't cover the primary system, although he did make the joking offer that he could design a democratic procedure to elect the candidate of your choice, given the opportunity to first talk to the voters. (P.S. He doesn't seem to like IRV, which is one of the methods he might use to game the system.)

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
Get rid of caucusing (0.00 / 0)
Despite not having a caucus in Cali, we can see that the party building right here is fine. Caucus is a way to promote corruption, favors and dirty politics. If party building is about those then might as well not have the party. However we must get a pledge by Obama to change the system. Else nothing will happen in 2012 or 2016.

As for the popular vote count, there are over 101 ways to decide the numbers. So instead of trying to beta guess, wouldn't it be much fairer and objective if we just take the numbers given from the states themselves?

I can see why you are trying to justify Obama having the popular vote, just ask i'm trying to justify Hillary leading in the PV. But this will not promote unity. Since we are always talking about the rules, lets just follow the rules and follow the numbers given by the states.

Because all states don't report... (4.00 / 1)
And it would be ridiculous to assume that Obama literally got 0 popular support in MI.

And then we get into whether to count caucus numbers, the non-binding primary numbers, prima-caucus numbers, or everything all together, or something in between.

In the end, the whole lesson from all of this should be that applying the popular vote to the current system is a complete mess and makes basically zero sense.  The system is setup in such a way to trust the states to fairly select their delegates to the convention.  Clearly, Caucus states, despite their lower turnout, believe that is a fair way to represent their whole state.  A similarly sized primary state will have more votes, but around the same number of delegates.  Both of them are seen as equally legitimate, but trying to compare the popular vote obviously severely marginalizes the caucuses.

[ Parent ]
Unity (0.00 / 0)
is overrated, I'm starting to believe.  I am no longer interested in pandering for the purpose of unity.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
No delegates if Popular Vote ultimate authority... (0.00 / 0)
I just don't see how you can mix the two... Why should we have a situation where the popular vote, if it's an "official" measure, would be different from the delegate count?

I'm not sure it's the best route.  If we're going to basically have an "official" popular vote count, then that needs to be it.  Whoever wins the popular vote gets to go to the convention as the winner (as the convention is basically just a big party for the nominee now).  If we're just going to have an official popular vote count AND an official delegate count, you're inviting the same kind of BS we're seeing now, but in an even worse way.

In the end, it either needs to be about one or the other.  The system as it's setup now trusts the states to have a process to select their delegates.  If caucuses are used, this obviously creates a situation where the vote/delegate is much smaller than a similarly sized state with a primary.  However, in both of those situations, the delegates are supposed to represent the will of the entire state, in equal proportion.

My point is, if you're extremely concerned about the Popular Vote, than THAT needs to be the measurement that it used in a uniform manner, and nothing else.

Abolishing the caucuses is a bad idea... (0.00 / 0)
...Caucuses allow lesser known candidates to move up the ranks via true grassroots and word of mouth organizing... they are inherently more democratic and the purest level and more favorable to the "little guy" than primaries are.

Primaries are expensive, favor the well-known and well connected candidate, and give little room for the lesser known, but better candidate, to win.

I know that most people don't agree with me on those points, but so be it.  The fact is, you won't be able to eliminate caucuses 'cos primaries are expensive and many states simply will not have taxpayers pay for an election of a private club.

Quite frankly, that's the way it should be.  I'm all for making caucuses more democratic, but I think eliminating them would be a huge, huge mistake.  I guess it's a moot point, though... as I said, many states won't foot the bill for primaries.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

Unworkable (0.00 / 0)
Some states simply won't do Primaries.  Iowa, as has been pointed out, has the Caucus written into their constitution.  You're looking at decades of legal wrangling to get any uniformity, and towards the end of the process you're probably going to have to simply not seat delegations from the Caucus holdouts.  Beyond that, I think the benefits of a caucus outweigh the drawbacks.  It does promote and reward activism, and it is great for party building (not just getting people to vote for your party, but getting them invested).

I'd rather see everyone who could use the Texas system, and have both.

Isn't there a way ... (0.00 / 0)
to get vote totals at a caucus?
[ Parent ]
Sign-In Sheets (0.00 / 0)
Okay, let's assume that there is an "official" popular vote tally.  What does that mean?  Is it simply a moral argument to be presented to the SD's, but now with some clarity?  Or do you award delegates from a national pool of At Large delegates for it?  If you do, do you do it proportionally (like every other stage of the process) and have it deliver nearly zero resolution, or winner-take-all (something we don't do anywhere else)?

Or do you just accept that popular vote totals are inherently flawed in a process that takes place over months?  And I think we do want this process to take some period of time, very few of our past nominees would have become such without the exposure of wins early in the process.  An accelerated process, or some kind of same-day national primary, would deliver the candidate with the highest name recognition going in, or brokered conventions when 3 candidates split the electorate fairly evenly.

We need a process that winds up with finality more than we need to address any particular state's voting method.  Even if we've dodged a bullet this year, we cannot afford to leave the spectre of a convention revolt open in the future.

[ Parent ]
Anyone know expected turnout in SD and MT so as to guesstimate (0.00 / 0)
the required margin of victory for a 25,000 vote lead?

Help support "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film!
Why Are We Even Talking About This? (4.00 / 3)
The "popular vote" doesn't exist as a metric in Dem primaries. It's nothing more than a bullshit talking point for HRC so she  can strong-arm the supers.

When Obama regains the popular vote lead tonight, can we finally put this out to pasture?

I'm with you on the need to reform the system, but even entertaining the notion of this metric for this primary simply advances a specious argument.

Please, Chris .... (0.00 / 0)
The 2008 popular vote is the modern equivalent of counting the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin.
penalties for going early? (0.00 / 0)
Michigan and Florida were penalized for going early in the primary schedule, so of course, delegates were reduced by 50% by both parties.  There's a real principal here in that you'd like the early states to be possible to win for an insurgent candidate.   The 2008 race has show retail politics can be done on a more or less national scale, but between 2 candidates.  7 or so candidates have no hope in competing in a primary schedule front-loaded with large states.

The solution is that if a state wants to jump the line, they get treated in delegates as a small(er) state.  Even if that state is difficult to win, the negative impact on potential
insugent candidacies is less.  I think this matters because the hypotheical future progressive candidate will likely be an insurgent who unexpectedly connects during campaigning and not an establishment candidate.

If we talk about delegates, it's easy to award half-votes.  However, if we talk about the popular vote as mattering, this is a much more difficult discussion to have.  It is, however, necessary to the argument for the same reason.  If CA goes first and a popular democratic governer from CA   is running, the vote lead becomes insurmountable no matter how many NH and SC states get won.

This is another reason popular vote cannot be a decisive metric.

6,000 Delegates? (0.00 / 0)
Democrats should work to reduce the carbon footprint of its convention.  Less delegates is the first step that should be taken in that direction.  

Saxby Chambliss, worse than disgraceful; he's reprehensible.  
Popular Vote Update | 50 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox