#### Comment Preferences

• ##### Popular Vote in General Election is not the same.(3+ / 0-)
Recommended by:

In the General Election, every state has a primary with the same rules. This isn't true in the Democratic Primary, where the states determine the process that they use.  This basically makes the comparison of one state's so-called popular vote vs another state's vote a comparison of apples and oranges.  You can't just say "look at what happened in 2000", because they are NOT the same thing.  It doesn't matter that Obama will win the popular vote, or, I should say, it shouldn't matter.  What's important are DELEGATES.

Some 5th grade math:  Before you add 1/4 to 1/2, you have to first create a common demoninator.  In the DNC's Delegate Selection Rules, the delegate is that common demoninator.

If the Democratic Party wanted to use the popular vote as a measure of the candidates' support, then it would require that all states hold a Democratic primary. (It would then be similar to that of the general presidential election, in which the popular vote in the state elections determine the electoral college.)  However, since the DNC allows both democratic caucuses and democratic primaries, then you have to use delegates to add the results of the caucuses to that of the primaries.

Take another example:   Washington state (which Obama won) & Oklahoma (which Clinton won). Since Washington State is a relatively populous state, it's awarded 78 delegates.  However, since it uses caucuses to determine its delegate selection, it added very little to Obama's popular vote advantage (+90,000 according to Kos), despite his winning by a HUGE margin there (68%-32%; a 53-25 delegate advantage).  Compare this to Clinton's win in Oklahoma, which is about half the size of Washington. She won the popular vote in Oklahoma by a smaller margin, 55%-31%, and came away with a +10 delegate advantage (24-14). However, she gained a +100,000 popular vote advantage since it's a primary state and many more people participated than in Washington's caucus.

Eventhough Clinton comes out ahead in comparing the "popular vote" between these two states (+10,000), I don't think anybody would debate that her Oklahoma win (+10 delegates) was more significant than Obama's Washington state win (+28 delegates!) (Okla isn't a "big state" afterall!).  Had Washington held a primary (one that actually counted, that is), Obama may have won the popular vote in the state by a margin in excess of 200,000 votes (closer to 300,000? just guestimating here).

• ##### No comparing states, but candidates. n/t(0+ / 0-)

Forward to Yesterday -- Reactionary aesthetics and liberal politics (in that order)

[ Parent ]

• ##### It is the same. To argue otherwise is specious.(0+ / 0-)

Popular vote is also an argument FOR Obama since he will have popular vote lead by end of primaries.

• ##### but it gives Clinton an opening, however small(0+ / 0-)

better to stick with the numbers that count: Delegates (and Fundraising)

• ##### Stick to honest answer...popular vote counts.(0+ / 0-)

Democracy makes no sense if popular vote does not count.  It's the exception, not the rule that the winner in delegates is also the winner in popular votes.