What's this "Popular vote" discussion

[1awake]

Forgive me, I am still new here, and I really can't say I'm all that experienced in primaries or elections. So having said that, take that into consideration with my question...


Now like I said, I'm the new guy to this, but how can any candidate claim the popular vote in this primary? Let's set aside the fact that a popular vote determines absolutely nothing in the Democratic primary by way of the rules. Let's even set aside the standing rules. My question is, if these states listed below are Caucus type votes:

Iowa
Nevada
Alaska
Colorado
Idaho
Kansas
Minnesota
North Dakota
Nebraska
Washington
Maine
Hawaii
Texas (sorta)
Wyoming

.... Then how can all these people be claiming anything in reference to a popular vote. If you remove the names of both candidates and just look at this with a unbiased eye, there is absolutely no way you, or anyone else can claim anything with the popular vote.. mainly because there IS no popular vote. We can't arbitrarily start only looking at bits of a picture in order to make things look how we want them to look, that's Republican and thats insane. By even attempting to look at a popular vote count that is only based on specific states in our union, you inherently disenfranchise millions of people while claiming the opposite.

I'm sorry, but this is nuts. Yes, I support Obama but never have I put down, made fun of, or treated anyone on the Hillary side unkindly, and I don't mean to now. Check if you wish. I would be happy with Hillary as president, but not like this folks.. not like this.


~1awake

[sellitman]

1. Simple.

Hillary and her followers have selective amnesia.

They pick out exactly what they like and serves them best out of the rule book then make up crap as they sink deeper and deeper into what is a loosing campaign.

It could be called cheating in the real word but for argument sake I give them the benefit of the doubt and call it selective amnesia.

[DefenseLawyer]

2. Not only is there no "popular vote" nationally

But even in states that choose delegates by "popular vote", in some of those states the number of delegates awarded from each district is based on turnout or results in prior elections, meaning that, because they are voting for delegates and not candidates, some votes are actually worth more than others.

[housewolf]

3. I agree with you...

The rules going into the primary season were about delegate counts. Each district of each state had been granted a certain number of delegates to the national convention, and the primary elections are about determining how many of those delegates would be committed to each Democratic candidate for president.

It is up to each state to determine how those delegates are selected - either by direct election (popular vote count), by caucus, by a combination or some other means. Each state gets to decide for themselves how they want to do it.

Ours is a "representational democracy", not a "direct democracy."

While a case can be made that the caucus system is less of a "direct democracy" system, the fact of the matter is that the primary elections are about counting delegates, not a popular vote. If folks want to change that, they need to work on that for future elections. It's wrong to try to go about changing the rules at the end of the process.

[butterfly77]

4. She is using this for voters..

by trying to portray it as the 2000 election and she may get more than she bargained for...

[insanity]

5. Enough with the logic

Why don't we just decide the race with a coin-toss. Hell, why not let Hillary call it after its landed and she's carefully examined it.

Why do we have rules?
Why are we amazed that people who win elections in a democratic system usually do so by using the rules to their advantage... like working in states like Idaho for the small number of delegates?

Political parties are private organizations, and as such, they can make their own rules on how elections to determine their leadership work. We happen to be members of this club, and we have a right to try and change it if we don't like it. Nobody complained about a delegate race in January

[butterfly77]

6. Hillary is full of it...

she wants to claim that she has the most votes when she knows damn well that this was part of the limbaugh plan, in reality she doesn't have the most votes let alone all of the people who didn't vote in michigan...

[craz3z]

23. This is a good point...

...because many people in those states she won voted for her with every intention of voting for McCain in the general. I was in Indiana during the primary there, and I spoke to many, many people who were planning on voting that way. This is, I think, also a good reason NOT to base the primaries on the popular vote.

[AtomicKitten]

7. It's the metric of subterfuge.

[palindrome]

8. Obama said the pop vote mattered before he had the delegates.

[NYCGirl]

11. You have a link to that? Because there has never been a time when he was not

ahead in delegates.

[Indenturedebtor]

20. I say you have nothing to substantiate that claim

And besides... Um he's winning the popular vote too. Oh except in the "states that matter" :eyes;

Seriously these arguments coming from HRC get more and more rediculous.

[bigbrother05]

9. In the legal world it's called jury nullification.

The defense counsel will make a counter-argument to get the jury to concentrate on something other than the basic facts of the case. It is hoped that something will stick in the jurors' minds to get them to ignore the clear truth of the case and find defendant not guilty even though it is clear that they did the crime.

The Clinton campaign has trotted out every scenario possible in the hopes that the jury (SDs) will find in their favor even though the facts (delegate count) is clearly in favor of the other side.

JURY NULLIFICATION

[ClassWarrior]

10. It's a distraction. Welcome to DU.

:toast:

NGU.

[Ravy]

12. Obama mentions it frequently. Ask him.

BTW, most of those states recorded how many voted for each candidate, prior to weighting.

[GarbagemanLB]

14. and those that didn't? Do you favor disenfranchising them?

[ClassWarrior]

22. Still no answer?

NGU.

[Ravy]

27. I don't spend every second of every day on the board. Sorry to inconvenience you.

They know how many people voted, and could apply votes to the percentage reported in each county.

I know at least on the night of elections, they told us exactly how many voters came out in each state. If they didn't record the exact votes, they could get very close.

[Ravy]

26. Again, ask Obama.

I lose track of which states we are disenfranchising and not now days.

He started mentioning the popular vote as soon as he took the lead in it.

[Gore1FL]

13. It is foolishness that only fools buy into

Therest who use it do so as a cover under the assumption that the rest are fools.

[Doityourself]

15. The Pop Vote is bullshit and the last goal post they have...they've tried them all

[rocktivity]

16. DING DING DING! 1awake, you're our grand prize winner!

...(I)f...(the 14) states listed...are caucus-type votes...(t)hen how can all these people be claiming anything in reference to a popular vote?

Also factor in that four of those caucus states didn't even compile popular vote totals, and as you pointed out, Texas had a primary AND the caucus. A popular vote count is therefore impossible to calculate because it exists only in the Hillary camp's imagination.

:headbang:
rocknation

[NC_Nurse]

17. Bullshit. Spin. Whatever your preferred term is.

[Bensthename]

18. This is her case to her non educated voters to keep getting money. Even though she is lying.

So sad

[RichardRay]

19. Newbie or grizzled veteran - there's no arguing when someone

says it like it is.

Take a bow, 1awake.

[jsamuel]

21. RCP has calculated the popular vote including caucuses

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Only four caucus states didn't release their vote totals, but RCP estimated their counts based on the results and adds them in.

[FlaGranny]

24. It's easy to see from your link

why Clinton doesn't want Obama to get any votes in Michigan. Only if he is awarded zero votes for Michigan does she win the popular vote, but since the popular vote doesn't count it doesn't make much difference anyway, except to the delusional.

[rocktivity]

25. An estimate isn't an actual vote count

a caucus isn't a primary, and you can't get a genuine popular vote count unless all fifty states have the same kind of primary and no caucuses.

:headbang:
rocknation

[FrenchieCat]

28. The popular vote discussion is a bunch of shit!