Which is more important for the nomination, delegates or popular vote?

[joshcryer]

If it comes down to a broker (which is likely), and both candidates have a sit down with Dean to talk over who gets to be the nominee, will the argument hinge on pledged delegates or on the popular vote? Which argument should be the victor?

If a compromise cannot be made and it goes to the DNC, which argument would be more compelling to superdelegates?

Assuming the person has both the delegate and popular vote, then it doesn't matter (and I think any reasonable person would see that candidate coming out the victor), I'm asking in the scenario where one candidate has more delegates and one has the majority of votes.

Which one trumps which?

[SteppingRazor]

1. It should be popular vote, but it probably will be pledged delegates. n/t

[IndieLeft]

19. It's the super delegates...

As we are being warned over and over again.

People keep telling me that I am wrong about this, and that they only make up 20%.

Well, I am RIGHT about this, and they do make up 40%!

[Proud2BAmurkin]

2. It would be tough for someone to argue against actual human DEMOCRATIC votes

But funny to watch them try

[joshcryer]

9. Bush II had no problem doing it.

But the DNC rules aren't the same as the electoral college, they can change at whim. A vote can be tabled at whim. I expect if it comes down to it, Hillary and Obama will both make similar arguments to Dean, if they can't make a compromise, it would go to the DNC. And those are the two biggest arguments that would be made.

[Skinner]

3. Delegates.

The name of the game is delegates. We can't change the rules now, or else all hell will break loose.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

4. I think he's asking if Superdelegates are pressured to consider delegates or voters

Superdelegates aren't required by the rules to vote on either one

[joshcryer]

7. Yeah, I knew they didn't have any real rules, I was just noting the two major arguments if...

...it comes down to it.

Hopefully we won't have that scenario and there is a clear pledged delegate/popular vote winner.

[joshcryer]

5. At the DNC if it is a brokered convention, arguments would be made, and superdelegates would decide.

The super delegates can chose however they want, and the two most compelling arguments will be "delegates" and "popular vote." I'm not sure which they would chose.

But there is no rule breaking here, to be fair, super delegates would be the one making their own decision based on whatever information they have available.

The ideal scenario is having a victor coming out of the last primaries with both a pledged delegate and popular vote majority.

[Skinner]

8. I still think the correct answer is delegates. For two reasons.

1) Primaries tend to have a lot more voters than caucuses. Going by popular vote would diminish the influence of caucus states.

2) The candidates have been competing in a campaign for delegates. That fact influences how they compete. They likely would have run different campaigns if they were competing for total number of votes.

[joshcryer]

10. True. That's a very interesting argument.

I could see that argument being made.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

12. But the pressure to go with delegates would be based on "democracy" arguments

[paulk]

17. I would argue the opposite - that caucus states aren't

a very accurate reflection of the voters will. Personally, I think that caucus states should have their influence diminished.

There's a reason why the party has been shifting to primaries over the years instead of caucuses and that's the reason. Sixty years ago they were ALL caucuses. Caucuses are far more open to party manipulation and influence by small numbers of people.

[boston bean]

11. Then no one should be pressuring these people.

I hear obama wants them to vote according to their districts, which I still think favors hillary, so I am not sure why he wants it that way.

And what about the delegates that are already pledged like Kerry and Kennedy, will they have to switch their pledge.

If we are going to leave it up to these people then we should leave it up to them.

I think one of the larger considerations is popular vote. Caucuses are not truly representative of all voters, so I go the other way. Many voters are disenfranchised in a caucus.

[joshcryer]

13. Another good argument.

States with primaries, though they do have delegates, are campaigned as though one was going after the popular vote.

[Skinner]

14. Here's what needs to happen.

Howard Dean and the DNC need to get in contact with all of the unaffiliated superdelegates IMMEDIATELY, and get them to sign a simple pledge which says something like this:

"I pledge to support whichever candidate has won the most delegates in the various statewide nominating contests."

If Obama and Clinton have to spend the next six months fighting over superdelegates, our party is fucked royally. Dean needs to take the unaffiliated superdelegates off the table.

[boston bean]

16. There needs to be some agreement, I will agree, before this goes on to

long before and one side or the other appears to be manipulating the process/outcome and the voters get real pissed.

[rinsd]

6. It will be delegates though I could see pop vote totals having some sway with SuperDelegates (nt)

[joshcryer]

15. Just wanted to thank you all for a very civil discussion without craziness.

Thanks again. It was short, but had lots of quality arguments. :hi:

[ctaylors6]

18. delegates at this point since candidates planned & executed campaigns based on that assumption BUT

popular vote sure would be nice

[UALRBSofL]

20. I think popular vote

Because caucus votes are not representative of that candidate.

[bigwillq]

21. Delegates

Based on the rules in place right now.