Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Puerto Rico and the Popular vote
This is a question for those who think that the popular vote ought to
count for something - should non-states count in that popular vote
tally. I notice that, at present, RCP is including the
totals from places like the Virgin Islands and American Samoa in their
popular vote totals, although these numbers amount to very
little. I notice, however, that Greg Sargent was tossing around
the figure of ~900K voters expected in the PR primary in June.
That is a significant chunk of votes. Given that these folks get
0 electoral votes, however, I am given to wonder whether it makes sense
to count them in the popular vote totals.
What do you think? Should it be counted? If so, why? If not, why not?
Comments (10)
Yes, they should be counted because they're Americans. Although electability might influence how we vote in the primaries, it's ultimately about letting the people decide who they think is best qualified for the job and not just who's most likely to get elected. (Granted, being able to get the job against a Republican adversary is part of being qualified for the job.)
That said, ultimately it comes down to the delegates, pledged and unpledged. PR gets a nice chunk of those, too.
April 24, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a fine and sensible answer. Might I ask a follow up question - should PR have electoral votes? I do not mean this as a question of law - obviously from a constitutional standpoint the answer to that question is a simple "no." I mean from a moral standpoint. Given your confident assertion "they are Americans," do you think that justice demands that they have a say in the electoral college even if they are not a state?
April 24, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as Puerto Ricans continue to vote against statehood, they are willfully forgoing the representational benefits of becoming a member state of the Union.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Puerto_Rico
April 24, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a difficult question, I'll grant you that. My instinct is to say, "yes". Well, then, should they have 2 seats in the Senate? Well, no, not unless they actually want to become a state (and I'd be happy if they did). In short, I don't know. Perhaps they (and other territories) should be granted a single electoral college vote each.
Oh, on a side track, DC should definitely get 2 seats in the Senate and 1 in the House. (I think they already get 3 electoral votes.) What's up with that?
April 24, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I definitely agree with you that D.C. should get some sort of voting representation in the Congress. I would, however, prefer to amend the constitution to give them a vote in either VA's or MD's senate races and the contiguous congressional district rather than craft two new senate seats for just one city.
April 25, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I bet I know how PR voters would "count." Would you be all that surprised by this:
PR voters count if Hillary wins PR.
PR voters don't count if Barack wins PR.
Very simple. You should know this, already, Greg, since you haven't counted in awhile, being from Missouri.
April 24, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It occured to me after I hit "send" that I would do just as well to ask whether these non-states (Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, etc) should have any say in the process at all. I would be just as interested to hear folks thoughts on that question as on the one I asked above.
April 24, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, I disagree with the implicit premise of your question, Greg. According to the rules of delegate selection, the popular vote doesn't matter. It's the delegates that do, as the delegates select the nominee. Superdelegates have the freedom to base their choice on whatever they see fit, be it the national popular vote, their constituents' preferences, or literacy rates in Uzbekistan.
Now I don't begrudge the Clinton camp for trying to spin first the popular vote, then the primary state popular vote, and who knows, the popular vote in states with "New" in their names, as what should be the relevant metric, but the bottom line is that they can merely state their opinions on what metrics the superdelegates should use. And by arguing over what should count in a popular vote total, you tacitly accept that some popular vote count has meaning. It doesn't, except to those superdelegates who want to be guided by it.
If it becomes clear that Hillary can't win the "popular vote" by any plausible definition, I think we'd be hearing more that the superdelegates can vote their conscience, and that Hillary has the momentum and should be the nominee anyhow. Which, according to the rules, is certainly within the rights of superdelegates to decide.
Clinton is fighting as hard as she can to win, and, ascribing to her the most charitable motives I can, it's because she believes she would be a better president, and she fears that GOP mudslinging and latent American racism will cause Obama to lose in November if he is the nomninee. And, frankly, I can't completely rule out that possibility my self. But I also know that Clinton is vulnerable to mudslinging and latent sexism, which may (or may not) be stronger than latent racism.
Peurto Rico gets delegates to the Democratic convention, more than any remaining state except Indiana and North Carolina. Those will clearly count. The popular vote, except to the extent to which it allocates pledged delegates, or convinces a superdelegate, is irrelevant.
April 24, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a fine point. Let me rephrase my question, then. Imagine, then, that you were a superdelegate. Would a pitch based on the popular vote be more or less persuasive to you if it included totals from non-states?
April 24, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I still think popular vote is a bogus metric, as the differences in contest types and voter eligibility mean you're counting apples and oranges. Or at least oranges and tangerines. The only value I'd attach to popular vote totals are as some clue to how candidates might poll in November, and their coattails on down-ticket races.
To me, candidates who added Puerto Rico to their popular vote totals would make their already unpersuasive pitch even less so: Puerto Rico gets no electoral votes, so what its voters think is irrelevant to judging who might be more electable. And so you'd lose points in my estimation for tossing in irrelevant data and trying to game the system in your favor.
Since I'm not a superdelegate, though, what I think doesn't matter. My guess is that the elected officials would be guided primarily by how their constituents voted, then by what sort of positive effect a given candidate might have at the top of the ticket. Unelected party officials would presumably be moved by more by the candidate they thought would be stronger overall, their coattails, and also their ability to raise funds and inspire new voters to join the party.
I have no doubt that if adding Puerto Rico's votes would push Clinton ahead in some sort of count, her camp will do so. They're trying to make any plausible sounding argument to appear viable.
And I wouldn't be surprised if some superdelegates might find that appeal convincing, or at least enough of a fig leaf to justify their choice. And, while I might not make the same choice myself, I can't really begrudge them that option, as the process gives them that choice, as undemocratic as that may be.
April 25, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment