Why Aren't Caucus States Included In The Count Of The 'Popular" Vote?

[Me.]

The math can be done, I've seen it on the INTERNET. So why do some states not count if everyone is so concerned about being representative in the 'no state left behind' argument?

[ShortnFiery]

1. Because it doesn't give HRC an advantage in her Rovarian MATH toward the nomination.

:crazy:

[anonymous171]

2. Because Hillary hates caucuses.

[GodlessBiker]

15. Apparently, she didn't know they even existed until after Super Tuesday.

[ingac70]

3. Popular vote isn't how we choose the nominee....

so it really makes no difference.

[gort]

36. Exactly!

This is about a party picking its nominee.

Clinton is not acting in the best interest of her party and she needs to stop or split off and run as an independent if she wants to continue on.

She didn't close the deal on Super Tuesday, she doesn't want to abide by the party's rules and she has put herself above her party and her country.

Time to go.

Obama 08

[endarkenment]

4. Look beneath the bus.

[Debi]

26. Next to Bill Richardson and Robert Reich n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. There's a simple metric for measuring the real popular vote.

Pledged delegates.

[Texas Hill Country]

6. because caucuses are not representative of their people... nebraska's follow up vote proved that.

[anonymous171]

7. That does not give anyone the right to discount them. I voted in a caucus.

So did many others. Does my vote not count?

[Texas Hill Country]

10. it is not a popular vote system, so when talking about popular votes, no its not counted.

[totodeinhere]

14. In that case then popular vote totals are totally meaningless because they...

disenfranchise voters in caucus states. Clinton screams about the so-called disenfranchising of Florida and Michigan but doesn't seem to care about the caucus states. What hypocrisy.

[SoonerPride]

16. Why is she willing to disenfranshise all those states then?

"Count every vote, except the ones that didn't vote for me."

[pschoeb]

20. Which means there is no national popular vote, which means such

a metric is irrelevant to determining anything.

[Occam Bandage]

22. Which means that the popular vote total is meaningless, since it disenfranchises caucus voters.

[goletian]

17. silly anonymous. only hillary votes count. this is a scientific fact.

[skipos]

12. Why did Hillary flip flop on caucuses?

She used to love them.

Any ideas why she had the change of heart? Caucuses have been around forever.

[Occam Bandage]

21. No, it didn't. Two reasons.

1. They took place at different times. Obama supporters could happily stay at home, knowing they had already won; Hillary supporters had reason to run out and try to invalidate Obama's win.

2. The candidates put differing amounts of effort into the system. Obama focused on caucus-specific strategies (such as GOTV, caucus education), while Clinton simply relied on her pseudo-incumbency advantage. Had the primary been what counted, Obama would have put effort into that instead of the caucus.

[Igel]

38. So try Texas.

Obama focused on caucuses more than HRC. But both tried for the popular vote.

Repub cross-over weakened his advantage there--and if you dice the numbers just right you get ratatouille. No, wait ... if you dice the numbers just right you could show it's a repub plot. But earlier it was rumored that repubs assumed Obama would be easier to beat, so wouldn't cross-over at that point be part of a plot? No: It leads to the wrong conclusion, so we have to start at the right conclusion and reason backwards to find the right logic. (But let's not do that kind of sophistry.)

But the problem remains: Same state, at slightly different times, rather different turnout. You didn't even have to stay for the duration of the caucus--you sign in and go.

If you assume that the caucuses represent the will of the potential electorate, in Texas you'd get the wrong result. You could try adjusting the results to suit the desired outcome, but that's just asking for problems.

I don't like caucuses. I also don't like weighting precincts differently based on past behavior: It's what leads to debacles like long lines in Ohio in the 2004 general election (in which voting machines were allocated in accord with previous voter turnout).

[Crunchy Frog]

29. So you're telling me that my vote doesn't count because it was in a caucus?

What a load of BS. My vote is as valid as anyone else's, and my state followed the rules.

[Bensthename]

8. If you havent noticed, Hillary sets the rules and the goal posts..

If she says they dont count then they dont count.. :crazy:

[Growler]

9. Because Hillary doesn't want to

[totodeinhere]

11. What you have seen is estimates. It's impossible to know exactly what the vote totals were...

in the states that did not release the vote totals. That's one reason why Clinton's claim that she is leading in the popular vote is so bogus. It's not possible top know what the popular vote totals are.

[Eric J in MN]

23. Bingo.

In 2012, I'd like for us to have primaries in all 50 states, with reported totals.

People should be able to vote at least from 7AM to 8PM.

The caucus system of telling everyone to go to the same place at the same time is a traffic nightmare.

Also, the awarding of delegates should be strictly proportional to statewide vote, not weighted depending on where a voter cast his or her vote.

[Cosmocat]

30. So, by Hill math ...

the only votes that were not really counted that are actually counted are Florida and Michigan ...

[pdxmom]

13. To me, the bigger question is why doesn't the MSM point out the fact

that in Hillary's Rovian math calculations, while claiming to enfranchise the voters of FL and MI, she is actively pushing to DISenfranchise every one of the caucus states.

[Me.]

19. I Agree

And wonder why the Obama campaign doesn't push this point.

[Debi]

27. Because they don't have to

When he is the nominee the Clinton scream squad will fade away into obscurity.

[MaineDem]

18. Because there is no count of popular vote

Please don't fall into that trap.

Also, at caucuses popular vote is not taken. It's not recorded. It's not available.

[dailykoff]

24. She's only counting her Diebold votes.

Why shouldn't she? She paid good money for them.

[Debi]

25. In Iowa there is no 'hard count' of the first preference alignment

the only 'hard count' is for the second preference alignment (realignment) and then delegates are awarded. And actually even that number is not really publicized, just the delegate count.

Trying to have delegates = votes would be inappropriate because (for example) someone who ended up for Obama could have stood for Biden in the first round but had to move to Obama because Biden didn't reach the 15% threshold. Since the final numbers wouldn't show the initial support for Biden, those numbers would be defective.

I don't know how it's done in other states.

I also have to echo the other posts on this thread. The Democratic Party determines it's nominee by the amount of delegates awarded in the contests + super delegate preference. If the Clinton camp didn't like that plan then they should have done something about changing those rules BEFORE the 2008 cycle began (after the 2004 election). Not half-way through the process when the campaign failed to amass the necessary delegates.

[Me.]

34. Good Answer

As well as many others in this thread. I'm betting that after the changing metrics of this process, there will either be some revamping or tightening of the rules in the future.

[baldguy]

28. They're not, which is why we count delegates and not votes.

And anyone attempting to imply votes are more important is grasping for straws.

[PatGund]

31. Because in the Rovian metrics and new math that Sen. Clinton's camp uses

we don't count.

Are there problems with the caucus process. Yes.

The time to fix it is after the election, same with Flordia and Michigan. Sen. Clinton knew the rules before she entered the race, and changing the rules now should not be an option.

[Mass]

32. They are - Except for the Clinton's campaign.

[DefenseLawyer]

33. Why doesn't someone say "Shut the fuck up" every time the mythical "popular vote" is mentioned

By Hillary and her desperate band of schemers? Generally, far from pointing out how disingenuous and fraudulent this "popular vote" argument is, the media goes right along and actually gives out some alleged tally, as if it has any legitimate meaning at all.

[Me.]

35. Good Retort

Succinct

[suston96]

37. That very question glaringly exhibits the problem with caucuses replacing the popular vote.....nt