Reply #61: Of course it is high post count [View All]

[Yotun]

In an election with both primaries and caucuses it is, unlike in 2000.

Consider this scenario:

2 states, with equal populations. One has a caucus, the other has a primary. The state with the primary is won by one candidate with a 55-45 margin. The caucus state is won by the other with an 80-20 margin. But because of the nature of primaries and caucuses, the candidate who won the primary nets a hunrded thousand popular votes, and the person who won the caucus nets ten thousand, even though both states have equal populations. The caucus winner is CLEARLY the most popular but he lost the popular vote count. Logic 101.

What you need is a system which allocates support according to the population of states and the margin of victory in either a priamry or caucus- something like... pledged delegates!!! The reason Obama should win because he has the majority of the pledged delegates is not because of technicalities, or because that's what the rules say. Its because the pledged delegate count is the only metric that correctly measures popular support in a contest with both caucuses and primaries. The difference with the 2000 election is that in the GE you have no caucuses, and the elections in each state are similar, so the popular vote CAN be used as a measure of popularity. Not so in the primary.