Popular vote count do hold merit

Certainly popular vote holds merit. It is intended for the superdelegates. Remember in January when the Obama people said the supers should follow the will of the voters. Well it is time to stick to the word. We have to remember that Obama cannot win the nomination without the supers. So it's all fair game. Forcing the supers to pick Obama is undemocratic and will make this election cycle illegitimate.

As for counting the popular votes, we should just follow what the state decides. If we want to consider things like caucus, open primaries, closed primaries for the popular vote, then why not do the same for the pledge delegates where we take the primaries rather than the caucus results (for those states that held both). If we want to be fair, we have to be truly fair and not be fair to one candidate and unfair to another. This will not bring about unity as dedicated supporters of the that candidate will feel disfranchised and cheated. Remember that millions of people dedicated so much of their time and money investing on their candidates. The investment and time by the people is unprecedented and therefore very unique. Assuming that the party will come together once we get a nominee without resolving the problems is a fairy tale. Never once in our nation's history have we had a primary like this.

In this case, Hillary decided to give up on the caucus states and that's for her to lose. She made a strategic blunder and it's no one's fault but hers. This goes with Obama as well. Obama decided to team up with Edwards and Bill Richardson to pull their names out of Michigan. Out of 8 candidates, 4 pulled their names out. These 3 candidates did distribute fliers and such asking the voters to vote uncommitted. Dennis Kucinich even campaigned in Michigan. So it is their strategic blunder and therefore should not have gotten any popular vote. As painful as this might sound, we have to be fair. The RBC made an unprecedented precedence by allocating delegates to Obama even though he was not on the ballot and they awarded him more than he should have received. The RBC's job is to adjudicate instead of playing politics. They failed in their job and with this hundreds of thousands of Hillary supporters had felt the nomination stolen for her. Rules are rules. If the DNC decided to cherry pick rules, then we had become the entity which he pledge to get rid off and is no difference than the Republican party.

All in all we should count what the state gives us and currently is:
1)Votes with Michigan and Florida as cast: Hillary leads by Clinton 303,785
2)Votes with Michigan and Florida as cast and the caucus states estimates for WA, IA, ME and NV which didn't keep track: Hillary leads by 193,563.

We should respect the states and not blindly judge the voters intend. If we do not, what's the different between us and the Supreme Court Justices such as Scalia and such whose purpose is to rule by the intention of our founding fathers.
The choice of unity now lies with the DNC. Regardless of the outcome, not everyone will be happy with all the heavy investments on the candidates. But the DNC can choose to be legitimate by ruling fairly. Making compromises is not fairness. And it is the states that decide how they want to have their elections and such we should respect their official results.



Display:


Fair Reflection of the ballot (2.00 / 1)

Fair reflection of the ballot...


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:32:55 AM EST

It would gold merit (none / 0)

If there were not 972 potential interpretations of what the final number is.  When both sides have good cases for claiming victory with those numbers, you have no choice but to toss them out and go with real, quantitative measures like delegate counts.


by libertyleft on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:41:05 AM EST

Re: It would gold merit (none / 0)

Remember that states were tasked with choosing their own electors. They chose by either:

 * Open Caucuses (Democrats, Republicans and Independents allowed)
    * Modified Caucuses (Democrats and Independents)
    * Closed Caucuses (Democrats only)
    * Open Primaries (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents allowed)
    * Modified Primaries (Democrats and Independents)
    * Closed Primaries (Democrats only)
    * Mixture of open caucuses and open primaries (i.e. Texas)
    * Mail-in ballot primary
    * Weekend primary
    * Weekday primary

The states are not on equal footing, hence any effort to tally the the popular vote is not an apple-to-apple comparison.


We have nothing to fear but fear itself. And clowns.
by haremoor on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:49:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Counting Michigan is absurd (none / 0)

because Obama was not in the ballot. Which means that Obama has won the popular vote.  And even if you were to count the percentage uncommitted got for Obama in MI (which still is absurd) he still wins the popular vote.

So he has won the popular vote, the pledged delegate race, he is ahead in superdelegates and he is far ahead in number of states.


by Fairy Tale on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:13:50 AM EST

Re: Counting Michigan is absurd (none / 0)

He wins the 49 state count, she wins the 50 state count.

OMG I just realized, she also wins the 49 state count if we arbitrarily exclude Illinois.

Stop counting Illinois  It wasn't fair.  


Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.
by BPK80 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:57:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Is this snark? (none / 0)

Serious question.


by Builderman on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:10:02 AM EST

Re: Popular vote count do hold merit (none / 0)

What happens to the popular vote numbrs if primary results are substituted for caucus results in Nebraska and Washington?? RCPolitics uses the caucus results for theses states but it would be more inclusive to use the primary results.I suspect this approach might put Clinton in the lead since she narrowly lost both primaries but got thumped in the caucuses where the turnouts were much smaller.


by pechorin on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:07:01 AM EST

Re: Popular vote count do hold merit (2.00 / 1)

Why not count both?

Seriously, if we have two contests in the same state, and we need to choose whether to include the first one, the second one, or both...  And this choice actually makes a difference in the end result...  It's obviously a flawed metric.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:13:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Popular vote is a red herring (2.00 / 1)

You can only use the sum total of "popular vote" as any sort of measuring tool if all the states are voting under the same rules and practices.

In our system of mixed closed/open primaries/caucuses/both, there is no way of actually calculating an overall "popular vote" total.  That is why pledged delegates exist--they're a common currency between all the various state systems.  And Obama is leading in that metric.

The "popular vote" argument is rapidly becoming ridiculous.  It would be as if Obama raised $30 million this month and Clinton came back with "oh yeah?  Well I raised 100 million yen!!"


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:11:31 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.