Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Popular vote question
I'm confused and maybe you can help me.
First off: I'm an independent and have never watched the Democratic primary in the detail I have watched it this year. After all, it is history in the making. So I might not understand everything about the democratic primary system.
My confusion stems from the constant references to the “popular vote.” Almost non-stop now, in the media and on the various websites, I hear discussions about the popular vote, and how if Clinton wins it, it might make an appropriate reason for the super delegates to make her the nominee.
But look at Minnesota where only 211000 or so votes were cast and then look at Wisconsin with a similar population and which cast about a million votes. Why would Minnesota have held a caucus if it knew its neighbor to the east —by holding a primary instead—would have 5 times as much impact on the nominee as it does? If Minnesota held a primary, wouldn't it get approximately the same turnout, in terms of votes, as Wisconsin? Wouldn't it then equalize it's voice with it's neighbor? Clearly, the popular vote total in a mixed process system like yours over weights the contributions of populous states with open primaries and—to a slightly lesser extent—closed primaries, while significantly under weighting caucus states, especially large ones.
Isn't this why the delegate system exists? To neutralize the effect of uneven turnout resulting from these different types of primaries? Wisconsin, with a primary, gets 72 delegates. Minnesota, with a caucus, gets 72 delegates. No state would ever hold a caucus if they knew the total popular vote was the metric to be used. They would be purposely deflating their voice in comparison to other states.
For example, how are the Democrats in Idaho, Alaska, Kansas, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Nebraska—all caucus states—going to feel when they realize that the crossover Republican vote in Texas alone had more of an effect on the nominee then they did combined? Or that Rush Limbaugh will have more influence on the primary than the entire state of Minnesota? The Republicans are gaming your system and your reaction is to consider changing things up so that their votes will carry more weight than some of your own? Rush might get a nice laugh out of it but I confess I am scratching my head over it.
Why aren't the Democrats in these caucus states screaming bloody murder at the people who are trying to legitimize the popular vote? Instead I see it mentioned as a valid metric even from party officials. Are Democrats so traumatized over the popular vote outcome in 2000 that the concept has become sacrosanct?
By
looking at the popular vote now, you effectively punish caucus states
after the fact. How is this democratic? If every state held the same
type of primary, Obama would be leading by about
the same margin in popular votes as he currently does in delegates.
Comments (6)
Well, you are correct. That is just another reason why many critically thinking people are critical of Hillary. She keeps wanting to gin this idea up - thinking she'll come out on top after Pennsylvania. And the mainstream media (outside of some on PBS) just lets the BS go on.
However, you can bet that when push comes to shove the Obama camp will indeed bring this fallacy to light. Also - Nancy Pelosi among others, has been quite adamant about this being a DELEGATE race for that very reason. Right now Hillary is all about smoke and mirrors, agitating the emotions of people who wrongly think they were wronged (Florida & Mich) and changing her policy positions and breaking her promises about as fast as most of us change underwear.
March 19, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If every state held the same type of primary, Obama would be leading by about the same margin in popular votes as he currently does in delegates."
Until the last sentence, I think this is a reasonable, well-argued post, although I don't entirely agree with it. But this statement doesn't follow, and is almost certainly untrue. Obama clearly does better in caucuses, for reasons both organizational and demographic. He did better in the Texas caucus held on the same day as the primary. He did much better in the Washington caucus than in the "beauty contest" primary two weeks later, which remarkably had more than twice the turnout in spite of being meaningless. If all the caucus states had held primaries instead, Hillary would very likely be in much better shape, both in terms of popular votes and delegates. She might even have the nomination locked up, especially considering that it was his victory in the Iowa caucus that really launched Obama.
By the way, I'm an Obama supporter.
March 19, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to agree with dedelste here. If all the states held primaries, I'd be willing to bet that Obama's success in the popular vote would be lower than it currently is.
March 19, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the conclusion is over stated, but the primary question remains. How does one justify changing from a known outcome to an unknowable one, even if it is a possible one?
March 19, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
By looking at the popular vote now, you effectively punish caucus states
after the fact. How is this democratic?
I'm curious why any state would allocate delegates by caucus rather than having an actual primary election where the votes are counted and the result speaks for itself numerically. And I live in a caucus state and it was a mess this year. It's a distorted process that disenfranchises an enormous number of people.
Dean does need to provide leadership to revise this process before the next primary season. The system is broken. If you don't think so, count the number of D & R presidential winners going backwards from 04.
March 19, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Why would Minnesota have held a caucus if it knew its neighbor to the east —by holding a primary instead—would have 5 times as much impact on the nominee as it does?"
WI does not exercise "5 times as much impact on the nominee" as does MN.
Minnesota has 5,132,799 population
Wisconsin has 5,536,201
MN has 88 delegates to the demo National convention
WI has 92 because it has a slightly higher population.
Delegates to the national convention are apportioned based upon population; and, in terms of "super delegates" from each state, one for each democratic congressperson and governor. Some reps to the democratic national committee from each state are also designated as supers, as are a number of party dignitaries, such a ex-presidents, vice-presidents, and such.
The aggregate popular vote in the democratic nomination process is really irrelevant. Except in the present case of the very close contest, and then only in terms of using the popular vote as an argument to the super delegates who will ultimately determine who is nominated.
The popular vote in individual state primaries, obviously, determines the allocation of delegates for each candidate from that state to the national convention.
Some state democratic central committees choose to caucus, others choose to hold primaries. Each has certain advantages and disadvantages.
It is indeed a goofy process. I wish there was a national primary election, say, about two months before the general election.
March 19, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment