You want a fractured party? You want chaos?

[hiaasenrocks]

After 2000, the vast majority of us were disgusted that Gore "lost" because he did not get as many electoral votes as ****. We have been pointing for years at the fact that Gore won the popular vote.

We recognize (and some of us disagree with) the fact that electoral votes win the day, but we were still disgusted.

So here we are, eight years later, not in a general election but in a primary election where the rules are admittedly different than a general, and we have people arguing in threads here at DU and on various TV shows that the popular vote shouldn't matter. It should be about delegates and "super" delegates, even if they go against the popular vote.

You want a fractured party? You want chaos at the convention? You want divisions so deep that the turnout is diminished come November?

I don't.

Let's use our power -- the power of the base -- to push for the winner of the popular vote to be the nominee coming out of the convention.

[LittleBlue]

1. Popular vote or popular vote by delegate?

Pledged delegates or popular vote? Obviously the huge states using open primaries will have a disproportionate say over small states using the caucus system.

[hiaasenrocks]

3. I'm in favor of strict popular vote outcomes.

I'm not concerned about state votes, mainly because they are artificial boundaries.

[MissWaverly]

5. no, he's talking about Maryland pledging for Sen. Clinton

before we vote on Tuesday, Sen. Mikulski and Gov. O'Malley can be for her,
God Bless 'em but I am a Maryland voter and me and all the other Maryland
voters should make the choice not them.

[hiaasenrocks]

7. I'm not singling out any state. I'm talking about the entire process.

[LittleBlue]

8. Agreed. This Superdelegate thing is undemocratic. Let them vote with us

at the primaries and caucuses.

[MissWaverly]

13. my thoughts exactly

what's the purpose for me shelling out my hard earned money, and
believe me the dems know where my wallet is w/o representation.

[MissWaverly]

52. I have been told that I am also voting for super delegates

tomorrow in the Maryland primary, I am totally confused now, will update everybody after I vote.


:-)

[MercutioATC]

2. I'll go one further. The winner of the popular vote should be President.

Eliminate the electoral college, delegates, and any other bastardization of the process that works contrary to direct representation in elections.

[hiaasenrocks]

4. I absolutely agree with you.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. I'll go one further. whoever I VOTE FOR should be president. period.

that way I can only blame myself.

of course, with my warped sense of humor,(which makes the universe look straight, not curved in comparison) everyone else should worry very, very deeply, if I ever had that power.

[MissWaverly]

17. I totally agree, eliminate the swing states role in the election

the election involving the entire nation would be harder to rig,

[CK_John]

6. You give a good example why we lose we never know the rules and are always in react mode and

end up sounding like whiners. We pop in every 4 yrs and pout.

[hiaasenrocks]

9. No idea what you mean by that.

[democrattotheend]

10. Is there a way to compute a national popular vote?

I don't think so, since many caucus states don't release vote totals. The proportional system was designed to minimize the chance of a Bush v. Gore scenario. Had electoral college votes been awarded proportionally, Gore would most likely have won.

[hiaasenrocks]

14. The states can release the vote totals or...

not be counted. Trust me, they'd find a way to make their vote count.

[stahbrett]

28. Agreed - proportional all the way, including electoral college. BUT...

Not just in California (as some are trying to do). It needs to be nation-wide, in my opinion.

I would modify the proportional system from what we apparently have in the primaries/caucuses, however. It seems needlessly complex - no need to base it on congressional district at all. Just have an election, and candidates get the percentage of delegates based on their percentage of the popular vote. Very easy to grasp, very easy to calculate.

[Hill_YesWeWill]

12. Yes, I have to agree, I saw menendez this morning, I believe on CNN

and he actually tried to make the argument that since super delegates are elected themselves to their office that it would actually be democratic for them to decide the nomination!!

This I found very disgusting, I oculdn't believe he said that! And, I didn't want to believe that this is a Clinton surrogate saying this!

Why have people vote at all, if it would be just as democratic to let the elected super delegates decide who our nominee is?

I just still can't believe a Hillary surrogate said this, I'm still reeling, honeslty! I have not voted yet, I vote on March 4th, so I don't think it's wise for either Hillary or Obama's camps to come out and say it would be democratic for party insiders to ultimately decide the nominee!

[sandnsea]

19. That's her position

Before Super Tuesday, she was sure to get out in front to tell everybody we were electing delegates and not states so that voters would understand that all those small states didn't mean Obama was winning. Well now that he's winning the delegates, she wants to change the focus again. That's who she is. How many times does she have to do stuff like this before her supporters wake the hell up.

[Hill_YesWeWill]

26. well now, let's be clear, her position that pledged delegates matter

is democratic because those are based on the vote,

and I've yet to hear Clinton come out herself and say what I heard her surrogate say this morning, which is that it would be deomcratic to have elected superdelegates ultimately decide the nom. simply because they were elected by the people, especially in a race this close.

to be clear, Clinton has not come out herself and said this, but to have a surrogate of hers come out and say this, I was very taken aback by this, I really still am

[hiaasenrocks]

29. That's her position now, but she changes positions faster than

I can keep count.

Part of this is done by triangulation, which is why you saw one of her surrogates saying that.

[Hill_YesWeWill]

33. well yes, I agree, she uses triangulation, I am aware of this as a Hillary supporter,

but ultimately I cannot see her supporting letting the super delegates decide the nomination despite the popular vote. Now, if the pledged delegates somehow ends up favoring the candidate who got slightly less of the popular vote, That would be an interesting dilemma, and I can't see Clinton supporting over-throwing the popular vote, the party just won't let this happen, we would lose all credibility

[hiaasenrocks]

35. I think we can count on both candidates to do this:

Each will be in favor of the process that would get them elected. Each will oppose the process that lets the other win.

Take, for example, Obama saying that pledged super-delegates should not be wedded to their pledge but when asked about Senator Kennedy (who has pledged for Obama) he said, "We can argue this different ways." In other words, he would welcome her pledged delegates changing their minds, but not his.

Hillary would likely respond the same way.

[Hill_YesWeWill]

40. Well, yes and no, actually on that Obama quote on Kennedy,

I think he was suggesting that arguments could be made on both sides, and that there are many questions involved in this discussion,

Here's one argument that the Obama camp could make today:

if the superdelegates were decided by the same mechanism as pledged delegates, which themselves are decided by the vote, He would be leading, and actually, that is the case.

Let us not be mistaken on this, Obama is Leading in pledged delegates, this is a Fact.

And, if Hillary is leading in the pledged delegates in weeks to come she would probably make the same argument, rightfully so

What it comes down to is, would either one of these candidates throw out democratic principles in order to lock up the nomination?

In my opinion, no, because that would turn away democratic voters, neither one would allow that, and certainly the party won't allow that,

The voters will decide this contest, and any Republicans that hope otherwise are dreaming

[sandnsea]

46. In August, Kennedy & Kerry should consider their constituents

I absolutely agree with that. They should consider their constituents, the national vote, and the will of the people by summer. That's how they should make their vote. Not by any promises they are making right now.

And you have way too much faith in the party if you think they won't overthrow the will of the people and keep in the machine. Do you believe they'd let Kucinich be the nominee?? Not in a million.

[sandnsea]

32. Here's her words

“Superdelegates are by design supposed to exercise independent judgment, that is the way the system works,”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/09/clinton-defends-role-of-super-delegates/

[Hill_YesWeWill]

37. Yes, that's an interesting statement for her to make, but she's not saying

that they have a right to decide the election themselves, that's not what that quote is saying,

and Obama has himself benefitted from superdelegates exercising independant judgement,

and I'm completely in favor of All the superdelegates, being american citizens themselves, voting their choice!

If however it comes to the point that the superdelegates votes could decide the nomination I believe that their votes should be divied up in the pledged delegate process, somehow.

[sandnsea]

39. It was in response to Obama's statement

that superdelegates should vote the way you say. If the election comes down to the superdelegates, they should consider the will of constituents, that's what he said. Hillary's statement is in response to that, that the superdelegates don't have to consider the voters at all. She is saying exactly what Menendez said this morning.

[Hill_YesWeWill]

42. ell, she isn't saying Exactly what Menendez said this morning, she's just not, but

I do agree, there is a slant there, and it's disturbing, and the fact that she has a surrogate on MSM stating this, it's disturbing, I was disturbed!

As a Hillary supporter, I've got my fingers crossed that it wont go further, and I just don't think the party would allow it.

[Hill_YesWeWill]

43. What Menendez said this morning was just almost unforgivable, he crossed the line

when he said that it would be just as democratic to have elected party insiders decide the nomination just because they were elected by the people,

That's not only an illogical argument, it's Very undemocratic, and she hasn't come out herself and gone this far, but as I said earlier, this is a surrogate saying this, certatinly raises a flag with me

[TexasObserver]

15. your popular vote approach won't work because of caucus states

Because many states have caucuses, you are effectively making their votes almost worthless if you try to compare them with states that have popular vote primaries. And let's not forget that we can't count Florida or Michigan, because they violated party rules and knew the penalty was exclusion of delegates. They wanted their beauty contest and got it, but their popular vote doesn't count and shouldn't.

[hiaasenrocks]

18. Another good outcome: the death of caucuses.

[TexasObserver]

24. in other words, you're shilling for Hillary

typical

[hiaasenrocks]

27. Wrong.

I'm a fan of neither candidate. I voted for Edwards in SC and I am undecided at this point.

In fact, my only plan at THIS point is to vote for liberals for all other offices. I might not even vote for president.

So your hit-and-run post is meaningless.

[TexasObserver]

31. your idea is stupid. you don't get to decide how states choose delegates

And you can't count popular votes to determine the nominee with that standard wasn't used in many states. I thought maybe you wanted a serious discussion, but I can see you're just another guy with a bad idea and no clue as to why it isn't a valid approach.

If you want to work to change the NEXT election to the way you want it, then get busy, but you can't take your half baked idea and try to impose in on this year.

[hiaasenrocks]

34. LOL.

I called your bullshit on your accusation that I'm shilling for Hillary so we end up with that angry response. Oh well. By the way, if you read my PM, feel free to post your response here instead, linking me to any post I have made that would show it is "typical" of me to shill for her. Thanks!

I'm well aware that I do not get to decide how states choose delegates. I am, however, aware that the process can be changed, as it has been changed in the past.

If you have anything of substance to contribute, that would be appreciated. Any further useless posts with nothing but personal attacks will be ignored. I'd rather discuss this with people who are interested in the process.

[TexasObserver]

36. it's a simple concept to master. some states have caucuses

and that is the system we will use to pick the nominee this year

sorry to burst your bubble

[hiaasenrocks]

38. I guess as a Hillary shill, I just can't recognize that.

Speaking of which, did you find any posts yet that prove I'm a Hillary shill?

The process is broken. Many of us want to change it. If you are happy with the process (because it helps your chosen candidate or b/c you live in a caucus state) then you're just going to have to recognize that some of us will work to change the process, and we'll either be successful at the convention this year or we'll lay the groundwork for change by 2012. I think we'll succeed at making the caucus a thing of the past (more than it already is) and we'll get to a popular vote in the DEMOCRATIC party.

[TexasObserver]

41. Yes, that's probably it.

If you're pushing to treat caucus returns as popular votes, and use that bogus number as the determinative factor, then YES, you're Hillary's Shill. Just because you're unable to be aware of that fact doesn't change it. The best shills are the ones that don't think well.

[hiaasenrocks]

44. For someone with "Observer" in their handle, you sure don't observe well.

I've already told you my view on Hillary. Ignore it if you wish. You were wrong the first time, but now you're just lying about it. I don't waste time with liars so this will be my last post to you.

This isn't about any particular candidate; it's about the process. That's what my OP was about, and most seemed to understand that even if they disagreed. Sorry that you're incapable of having an actual discussion about it.

[TexasObserver]

45. When your candidate loses, it's time to move on. I supported John a year.

But being a grown up, I've learned that when your favorite candidate falls out, you get behind another one. You don't whimper, you don't suck your thumb, you don't cry about the mean old process and party bosses. You do something for one of the remaining candidates.

I'll leave you to wailing about the injustice of a system that isn't to your personal liking.

[UALRBSofL]

16. That's changing the rules

I'm not sure how well that will go over with either candidate or there supporters. The same thing is taking place in Florida. That said, a solution needs to be worked out before the convention. If something isn't worked out by that time and one candidate is picked the nominee over the other and the way the nominee is picked may come across as not being fair to voters they will most likely be pissed and not vote. I am pretty sure the MSM will drag a story out as long as they can.

[Crooked Moon]

20. howling in the wind.

party rules that have been in place for more than a quarter century will not be overturned in the next 6 months.

it's cruel fate, in a way, that an anomaly similar in implications to the electoral fiasco in 2000 would visit our doorstep again so soon, but it will play out, whether we like it or not.

[hiaasenrocks]

22. All the more reason to make noise about it.

If the change doesn't come until 2012, at least it will happen.

Party rules are not set in stone, but I do recognize your point about the 6-month timetable we're dealing with here.

[Kitty Herder]

21. I think we should raise bloody hell if the super-delegates give the

nomination to the candidate who didn't win the most pledged delegates. The pledged delegates are the ones we the people voted (or caucused for).

Then we should raise bloody hell until the party stops using super-delegates. How can a party that calls itself the Democratic party continue to use a system that's so undemocratic?

While we're at it, how about a direct, popular vote to choose the candidate?

[hiaasenrocks]

23. We're essentially on the same page.

[kelligesq]

25. would take election reform to dump delegate vote thing-too late for that in this election but

most definitely something all democrats should work on after this election
Demand the election reform

Plus Super delegats are only since 1973 when back room dems instituted Super delegates becaue they didnt like who THE PEOPLE wanted!

The media steals our elections
the parties steal our elections
partisan individuals counting steal our elections
and now machines fix our elections

Third world country

When DO the people get to vote and have it count?

" That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[dkf]

30. Nevada says 117,599 voted, but their caucus has 10,542 delegate votes

and no breakdown of candidates by popular vote listed.

Therefore, I don't think the popular vote total is correct if it counts delegates for caucus states.

[goodgd_yall]

47. Should I assume you would want Michigan and Florida votes counted

They need to be included, it seems, if we want the nominee to reflect the will of the people.

[hiaasenrocks]

50. Yes, but I would prefer to see a re-vote in MI.

The ballot was not complete there, as some candidates removed their names.

There is no need for a re-vote in FL, as all the candidates were on the ballot. Those who chose not to vote there were not disenfranchised by any stretch. If voters had felt they were being disenfranchised, we wouldn't have seen the huge turnout that we did. With a complete ballot, the people who chose not to participate; that's their problem.

[goodgd_yall]

48. I'm for using delegates

The popular vote is not necessarily representative of the diversity of the base. I'm worried about the superdelegates being involved because whichever side loses will claim there were shenanigans in the selection process.

[hiaasenrocks]

51. I'm for popular votes in all elections.

The popular vote is representative of the majority of voters who care enough to show up at the polls.

If we really needed representative voting (delegates, electors) simply because of diversity, then we'd have to do that in the larger and more diverse states. But we don't. And that's good.

[Fresh_Start]

49. I have a similar rationale for ballot versus caucus

ballots have a higher turnout
So if you want the most people to have a voice in the process you have ballots