Popular Vote Doesn't Matter

Here's why...

1. The primaries/caucuses are about winning delegates to go to the convention to vote there.  That's the whole purpose.

2. Many states (like mine - Washington) went heavily for Obama in caucuses.  Lumping popular vote in primaries and caucuses together is like combining apples and oranges.  If we had a way to accuratly reflect likely primary turnout if it was a primary instead of a caucus (because primaries draw more people), then we could compare the two.  Oh wait, WE DO.  It's the FUCKING DELEGATE SYSTEM that awards # of delegates based on previous election turnout.

So can we please all agree that popular vote doesn't mean a damn thing, and that delegates more accurately reflect a balanced view of the populace?

One more thing.  While we're working on popular support issue, why don't we interpolate results for people who didn't vote at all to get at what the true will of the people is?  The answer, of course, is because we have a system.  That system is about winning delegates that are apportioned better to reflect the will of the people than the popular vote or anything else.  Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to change the rules or justify overturning the will of the people.

•  Popular vote doesn't matter?

  Wasn't that the argument in Florida 2000 that was used by the goopers to steal the election from Gore?

  by Kevvboy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:43:56 PM PDT

  •  What are you talking about?

    They stole the election. Period.

    Their arguments against those of Gore are irrelevant here.

    by RaulVB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:47:51 PM PDT

    •  they gamed the EC

      and yes when dumbaya sued Al over it the argument was made that tossing mostly black and hispanic voters off the rolls did not matter.

      by tony the American Mutt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:58:08 PM PDT

  •  Well...

    IIRC, there are no caucuses in the general election.  Which is the point I elaborate the most on in the diary.

    Also, there was a lot more that went wrong in 2000 than the popular vote.

    by bbrown8370 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:47:56 PM PDT

    •  Ignoring the popular vote

      and ramming their man in via the SCOTUS is what earned the Thugs the everlasting enmity of a generation of Democrats.  I don't think it's a great argument to use in favor of a Dem.

      by Kevvboy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:50:59 PM PDT

      •  Two Different Things!

        Bush being elected had nothing to do with the popular vote. The fight was over Florida -- not whether Bush should be elected even though he lost the popular vote. Had Bush won Florida by 100,000 votes, the Supreme Court wouldn't have been involved. Gore simply would have congratulated him (on election night) and Bush would have become (the legitimate) President elect. [Side note, here: the media actually initially reported that Florida went for Bush -- Gore then privately congratulated Bush -- the media then retracted their prediction -- Gore then retracted his congratulations]. Instead, the fight was over Florida -- not because a handful of votes could change the popular results (it couldn't) but because it could change the electoral results.

        The Democrats are pissed not because Bush got elected despite getting fewer popular votes. The Democrats are pissed because the Supreme Court didn't allow a full recount for Florida. They are pissed because Florida disenfranchised many voters. The whole reason we are obsessed with how people in Florida were treated (and not, say Alabama) is because gaining a few million votes in Alabama wouldn't have mattered, while gaining a few dozen in Florida would have.

        The arguments made by the author are sound. Your arguments are not (sorry).

        by RossBleakney on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:11:33 PM PDT

    •  just remember 'pledged' delegates

      are not really pledged at all so even counting them can mislead. I still have scars from the 1968 convention during the police riot in Chicago so protesting the convention could very well happen again if delegate gaming gets too outragous.

      by tony the American Mutt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:56:55 PM PDT

  •  Tell that to the Democratic Party

    They made the primary rules. Delegates are the only legitimate measure of success.

    by bflaff on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:12:19 PM PDT

•  Who are You Kidding?

  This is exactly the point the Clinton campaign has been making, that caucuses don't matter.  Frankly, with what happened in Texas, we have at least one piece of empirical proof that this is so.  Clinton wins the popular vote by 100,000 and loses the caucuses badly.  The caucuses aren't representative of the Democratic electorate at all.  So many of Obama's "victories" in states are really meaningless.  They're not representative.  So, even if you interpreted the caucus results up to turnout at a primary, that won't work because, the only evidence we have from a single state is that caucuses overrepresent Obama's strength among the Democratic electorate.

  by MMColo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:48:34 PM PDT

  •  BS

    You would be BSing the other way around, but Hill is getting her behind handed to her so, of course, you don't like the system.

    by RaulVB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:50:31 PM PDT

  •  Gotta love one data point

    One data point proves everything

    by bbrown8370 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:51:59 PM PDT

    •  Texas is always an extreme case

      and using it to prove anything does not work. And I say that as a born Texan (unlike dumbaya)

      by tony the American Mutt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:59:31 PM PDT

  •  No one complained in 1992

    I find it incredibly ironic that the first precinct convention (it's not really a caucus) I ever participated in in Texas was in 1992.  I was a delegate for WJC.

    Hillary had no complaints about the system back then.

    by tnorwood on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:24:16 PM PDT

•  That's the corporate media for you

  Whoever wins the delegate count is the nominee...don't tell that to Chris Matthews though, he might have a mental breakdown!

  by RaulVB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:49:24 PM PDT

•  Sure the popular vote matters

  The popular vote is the only thing that matters, actually.
  If the popular vote doesn't agree with the delegate count, it just shows what an idiotic system we have. And by the way I don't just say that because I think that would benefit my candidate. I think the superdelegates is also ridiculous.

  by mattinjersey on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:50:15 PM PDT

  •  "Sure" (n/t)

    by RaulVB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:50:57 PM PDT

  •  Yes, but as a measure of the candidates

    popularity, it is really poor. I agree with that we should change the system. But comparing popular vote while each state votes in very different ways is actually less fair than simply basing popularity on delegates won (as the author suggests).

    by RossBleakney on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:16:47 PM PDT

•  moral weight

  If neither candidate wins an outright majority of the pledged delegates before the convention (pretty much a certainty) having one who can claim that more voters chose that person suggests to the supers that they should observe the will of the people and commit themselves to the popular vote-getter.

  by iglarmobley on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:58:42 PM PDT

  •  Exactly

    It's a flawed argument that someone behind by a little will try to use if they're ahead in the popular vote.  It's still a flawed argument.  That's why I'm trying to put it down now.

    by bbrown8370 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:00:50 PM PDT

  •  What is an outright majority?

    It seems to me 100 delegates is a pretty healthy majority given the size of victories it takes to build up that big of a delegate cushion.

    by WellstoneDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:09:13 PM PDT

  •  That's an illegitimate tie-breaker

    If it was determined before this all started that pop vote would determine the victor in case no one had enough pledged delegaes to win, do you really think each candidate would have done everything the same? No, they would have focused more on winning both the popular vote and the delegates.

    You can't set a different standard for victory than the one that was established at the beginning of the race.

    And this is why the Dems will have a horrible mess on their hands. There is no agreed upon standard for how superdelegates should vote, and no one's taking a leadership position on settling this question.

    by bflaff on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:18:20 PM PDT

    •  Actually, there is.

      The rule is that the superdelegates should do what their conscience tells them to do. They should weigh everything -- popular vote, PD count, recent scandals, results in states they think "matter" v. results in states they think "don't matter," appeal to independents and swing voters, ability to motivate the base, polling, gut, intuition, fear, hope, the whole shebang.

      We can say this is a good system or a bad system. But everybody has known that's the system since before the 1984 campaign.

      Personally, I'm not too worried. I think the SDs have the good sense to realize they should just fall in line with the PD result unless there's some huge late-breaking scandal that destroys the PD leader's chances in November. Because if they don't, then the party will blow up. Surely they realize this.

      by HeyMikey on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:55:50 PM PDT

      •  True, the superdelegates have this power...

        I'm just writing this to advance the idea that considering the popular vote total number is flawed, and the superdelegates need to realize that.

        by bbrown8370 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:58:18 PM PDT

•  Sure, it doesn't count . . .

  . . . in deciding the delegates, or Hillary would not have won a delegate in my district's caucus with only 5 people, when all the other alloted delegates required 49 people to award them. She had 5 more votes, tho, and we had an odd number of delegates, so . . .

  Unfair, unrepresentative? Yup, and we know it. And while the popular VOTE may not count, popular opinions/trends DO, in a big way.

  The Dems know that this convention is going to have long lasting repercussions, that Denver will play a big part in the identity of the party for years to come, and that identity won't come from delegates. It's going to come from the lil' ol' common folks who make up that popular vote.

  And count or not, the Democrats will be in trouble if too much of that popular vote votes with it's feet . . .

  by Myrrhis on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:08:00 PM PDT

•  The real question is....

  Does the ability to mobilize a small number of extremely devoted supporters who will stand around for hours, eloquently persuading others to switch to their candidate and never changing their support (i.e Obama's ability to do well in Dem caucuses)...

  Does that translate into the ability to mobilize large numbers of voters to get off their lazy butts this fall and go down to the polls and vote AGAINST four more years of Bush War and Bush Economics?

  It should worry Dems that Hillary keeps winning the vote in the big states, because those most closely mirror this fall's election.

  If Obama can not defeat Hillary in Texas, California, New York, Ohio in the popular vote, how can defeat McCain in any state?

  Obama is starting to look like George McGovern who only won one state.

  by McCamy Taylor on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:09:20 PM PDT

  •  You sure sound like one of those . . .

    . . "small states don't count" people.

    Go on, then. Get elected with your big states and leave the rest of us out the equation. Discount our opinions, our efforts. And then see how long we stay in the party. And also watch Democratic nominees for other offices start to fail because the local party has shrunk.

    It's fine if you don't want us. Someone else will.

    by Myrrhis on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:12:31 PM PDT

  •  Check the front page diary

    You don't need to worry that CA, NY, and other big states won't go for Obama. Of course they will, and the fp diary about SUSA's 50 state polling shows you this is true. The argument that if Obama can't defeat Hillary in the bluest of blue states is a problem is simply wrong, because no Democrat loses these states.

    by bflaff on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:23:42 PM PDT

•  is my math right?

  significance is relative.

  i ran a scenario in which clinton is awarded the delegates from florida and michigan and obama is not.

  at the most she would net 56 from an uncontested counting of the current MI/FL votes. if there was a revote, and the best case scenario is her maintaining the current margin, she'd still net 56 delegates. that'd put her within 45 delegates of obama's current total lead, not counting the 12 remaining states, but including superdelegates. (it's currently a 101 lead based on cq.)

  there are rumors the obama camp will unroll 50 new superdelegates soon. if that's true, the delegates she could pick up from FL and MI are negated. the superdelegates could put her back 95 delegates of obama's lead. she'd net 6.

  assuming obama wins mississippi and wyoming (55/45), his lead increases by 5.. her possible net 56 is decreased to a net 51 if FL/MI votes were hypothetically counted next week. if he were to get those superdelegates next week, that puts him back to where he is today, at a 101 lead. exactly nothing would change.

  Does this make sense.

  i'm gonna continue because this is fun. assuming the 50 superdelegates is merely a rumor, she gets a net 56 from florida and michigan. he nets 5 from mississippi and wyoming. that puts her 51 away from obama's lead.

  she could make up that delegate difference by winning exactly 94% of the popular vote in pennsylvania. (55 delegates award proportionally based on popular vote.. 94% of which is 51)

  yes you read that right.

  she needs consistent blowouts.

  assuming obama will win some of the other 12 states and post reasonable margins elsewhere, she stands not a chance. in fact, she needs states 1-12 to go exactly right (margins of over 60% in popular vote) to have the mere possibility of florida/michigan revotes meaning anything significant for her.
  Edit/Delete Message

  by fivefouranonymous on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:11:18 PM PDT

•  Popular vote HASN'T BEEN MEASURED.

  Counting the 'popular vote' from primary states while ignoring caucus states completely gives a completely bogus picture which isn't useful at all.

  That's what I would say.

  by neroden on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:11:37 PM PDT

•  Hey, I was gonna post this diary!

  ...but got sidetracked.  Highly recommended!!

  Going by a so-called "national popular vote" (which Obama is leading in any case) clearly DISENFRANCHISES people in caucus states.

  You also need to point out that with different states having different rules about open vs. closed primaries, when you can register as a Democrat, etc., even the primary states are apples and oranges.

  We have a system, like you said.  Everyone agreed to it in advance when they declared their candidacy.  It's called the delegate system.  Obama is winning that, and the only way he can lose at this point is by arbitrary "superdelegates" to override the will of the electorate (as established through the delegate system).  I, for one, strongly encourage them NOT to do that.

  This "national popular vote" idea has to be CRUSHED!  Consider one last point - do you really believe the campaigns and volunteers in Colorado, Kansas, and other caucus states wouldn't have run different campaigns in those states if it had been a different system?  This whole meme is an attempt to muddy the waters and convince people that the system is hopelessly wrong so that superdelegates will vote for Clinton en masse, or somehow pressure Obama to accept a vice presidency.  Well, guess what, it wasn't such a bad system when Bill was able to wrangle a nomination out of it, was it?

  I'm sure the next thing Clintonites will be calling for will be a system based on a national poll (assuming she's ahead in a mythical head-to-head poll at that time), or a brand new national primary.  Changing the rules of the game, midgame.

  I believe it's called "Calvinball."

  by jakester on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:20:01 PM PDT

  •  Feel free

    to expand on what I've written in your own diary.  I didn't put much time and effort into this one.  I was just angry about so many of the comments I've seen in other areas and wanted to blow off a little steam.  Your point about open vs closed primaries is a very valid point that needs to get more traction.

    The message that popular vote doesn't matter in this needs to be said and repeated often.

    The last thing I want is a bunch of Clinton cronies from back in the day that are still superdelegates to have an excuse to throw the nomination to Clinton.  This has to be debunked as an excuse.

    by bbrown8370 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:51:36 PM PDT