What Big Tent Democrat (an Obama supporter) said:
So we are celebrating “democracy” in Wyoming today. The “will of the people?” Not hardly. Another travesty of the Democratic Party.
Do you know that if 8,000 voters come out in Wyoming today to select their 13 delegates that means that 615 Wyomingians will be selecting a delegate to our national convention (8000 divided by 13.) By contrast, when 4.4 million Californians voted in their primary, they selected 370 delegates, which is to say 1 delegate for every 11,892 Californian who voted.
The will of the people? Please never mention that phrase again when discussing the pledged delegate count.
So, one participant in the Wyoming caucuses today has as much say over our nomination as 19 Californians who voted in the primary (or 8.6 Iowans who came to the caucuses in January).
But Obama supporters, you keep chanting about how the lead in pledged delegates is the only factor superdelegates should keep in mind when it’s time to vote for our nominee.
I have been critical of the Iowa caucus system, even though some elements of the system favored my candidate. I don’t like the electoral college, even though it is possible that someday a Democrat may win 270 electoral votes despite losing the nationwide popular vote.
Big Tent Democrat is one of very few Obama supporters who acknowledges that certain elements of our nominating system are undemocratic, even though those elements favor his candidate.
UPDATE: In the comments below that thread on TalkLeft, user waldenpond wrote:
I have a spreadsheet with votes/dels etc. I have dels for red state/blue state. For the GE Clinton would has 78 to Obama’s 100 red. Clinton 815 to Obama’s 83 for blue. I have by state the number of votes it took to get the dels. I do it because I find it interesting, but I don’t think any of it means anything. Raw vote against dels.. Clinton 9289 votes per del. Obama 8553 votes per del.
Interesting. So Clinton has won more than 700 more popular votes per delegate than Obama has. If he does very poorly in PA and in any FL re-vote, he could well end up losing the popular vote despite retaining his lead in pledged delegates.
15 Comments
Using the popular vote total won't work because of the caucus/primary system
The system is set up to use delegates as the way to keep score. The fact that states can vote by a caucus or a primary skews the popular vote total and makes it unreliable. Just because Obama has won caucus states doesn’t necessarily mean he has lost the popular vote.
noneed4thneed Sat 8 Mar 4:28 PM
I would favor banning caucuses
for presidential candidate selection purposes.
Anyway, small Republican states are given more DNC delegates per register Democrat than larger, Democratic states. It’s similar to the way small, rural counties are overrepresented in terms of state delegates here in Iowa.
desmoinesdem Sat 8 Mar 4:43 PM
step back
u talk about votes per delegate but i overall i keep hearing that he is ahead in the overall popular vote. Which means nothing because that is not what the system is set up on. It is set up to have delegates. This is not a country choosing a president it is a party selecting its nominee so if u choose to be a part of that party than those r the rules you go by, and by those rules i believe Obama is continuing to win. They are both just playing by the rules they were given. I agree we should get rid of the electoral college and it should just be a nationwide popular vote for the only nation wide office and i think the primaries should do the same. But until that happens/ we make that change lets declare a winner by the rules they have been set down
jhern118 Sat 8 Mar 5:12 PM
it may not be the system
but it will affect his claim to legitimacy for the millions of Democrats who have voted for Clinton this year.
Obama supporters need to face the fact that fences will have to be mended, no matter who wins the nomination. They seem to think that only a Clinton nomination threatens to tear the party apart.
While important elements of the Democratic coalition favor Obama, other important elements of the Democratic coalition favor Hillary. I am hoping that one candidate emerges as both the delegate leader and the popular vote leader so that the healing process will be easier.
desmoinesdem Sat 8 Mar 5:56 PM
Lets stop yapping about obama stealing this election
when we realize that he’s up 3% in the popular vote! Ya, there are problems with the system, and those problems are giving Obama an edge in pledged delegates. On the other hand, Clinton has no problem with taking this election with super delegates and that is.. well, above and beyond the disenfranchisement of caucuses. …stop whining already people…
iowa-dem Sat 8 Mar 5:21 PM
Here's where I got my numbers
http://www.realclearpolitics.c…
And its actually about 4%
iowa-dem Sat 8 Mar 5:25 PM
A second addendum
These numbers are w/o Iowa, Washington, Nevada, and Maine. Considering Clinton only won small Nevada out of those and Washington has a sizable population, this would put Obama’s lead even larger.
iowa-dem Sat 8 Mar 5:28 PM
I never said he was "stealing" the nomination
It’s Obama supporters who continually claim that Hillary would “steal” the nomination if she won on the basis of superdelegates (who can vote however they want to according to DNC rules).
I am saying that no matter who wins, supporters of the other candidate will have grounds to question the legitimacy of the winner. Obama supporters will need to be gracious and help mend fences. Many of them are not helping the cause now with their hysterical claims that Clinton is a “monster” and their threats to stay home if she is the nominee.
Obama can’t afford to have millions of Clinton supporters stay home if he wins the nomination.
desmoinesdem Sat 8 Mar 5:58 PM
Thats fair
I probably just jumped to conclusions on that post. Today I’ve just kinda lost it on blogs at people. Its kinda turning into a day of rants. I’d never thought I’d say it but I’m actually growing sick of politics right now. Seriously, our party needs to get it together because we are just handing Bush #3, er, McCain the election right now.
iowa-dem Sat 8 Mar 6:05 PM
I don't agree
as long as the eventual winner is recognized as legitimate by supporters of the loser, it’s a good thing for our contest to go on.
McCain is going to struggle to get media coverage the next few months. All eyes are on the Clinton-Obama race. The Democrats are raising several times more money than McCain is. The Democratic campaigns are building organizations in all these states holding late primaries, which usually get no attention. That has to be good for our chances in November.
What could screw it up, though, is a lot of threats by supporters of either candidate to stay home if the other one “steals” the nomination.
Remember in 2006, how people were so worried about the tough Democratic gubernatorial primary here? Nussle had it wrapped up and was raising money, while our candidates were bashing each other and spending all their cash.
Well, a tough primary gets issues/problems out in the open and hones candidates’ skills. I don’t think it hurt Culver at all to have the primary. On the contrary, he got a lot of exposure with the ads he was running, and the debates and stump speeches improved his campaign abilities. I don’t think he would have won by as large a margin in november if he hadn’t been challenged in the primary.
desmoinesdem Sat 8 Mar 6:51 PM
I tend to agree
with Desmoinesdem’s analysis. The publicity, vetting and honing of campaign skills are helpful.
She also points out the potential threat from one side feeling that the eventual nominee is not legitimate. I think we have to accept pledged delegates as the best measure of legitimacy in our imperfect system. Unless the difference in pledged delegates is only a handful, any overturning of that result by superdelegates will make supporters of the pledged delegate winner feel the nominee is not legitimate.
I also agree that we should move to a primary in all states. With high turnout, our Iowa caucuses were quite a practical mess – everything from parking to counting large preference groups.
But, with the reality of caucuses and primaries, trying to compare popular votes and votes per pledged delegate are inherently unfair. Yes, Obama has surely benefited from caucuses. But, his popular vote margins would surely be even higher had the caucus states held primaries. Maybe his victory percentage and pledge delegate edge would be a tad lower, but his victory margin in actual votes would likely be much larger.
rf Sat 8 Mar 7:29 PM
I love the caucus system
I prefer the act of standing in my corner and holding my ground for a candidate I like. I think it might do more to vet out votes of ignorance and it’s just a great experience that has a greater sense of efficaciousness than checking off a box on a piece of paper. I do like paper ballots and voting that way, but it’s really a great democratic experience to stand up among friends and peers and to say that so and so is my candidate and this is why. I think if we ended that system, a lot of what is good about democracy would be lost. Caucusing requires a greater sense of civil engagement and I think that is good. It also requires more of the campaigns to bring out the vote – to get the less politically active, though interested, to get involved and caucus. I just have an affection for the caucus system even if it is not as simple a calculation as the standard paper ballot. But, there are different ways to find a majority, and so it is debatable which is the best method for defining our democracy.
drinksgreentea Sat 8 Mar 9:19 PM
well, when you talk to someone
who had to work the night of January 3, or who is disabled and unable to leave their house at night, the caucus system seems a lot less desirable.
Many of these people were highly engaged in the campaign and would have loved to be able to stand in the corner for their candidate.
desmoinesdem Sat 8 Mar 9:48 PM
True
I was at the Goodwill store on the day of the caucus and of course I was wearing my Obama stocking hat and she asked me about Obama. During the conversation I asked her if she was going to be caucusing. She said she couldn’t because she had to work the night shift. If the caucus system is not feasible for everyone, which I agree is the case, then a compromise, perhaps like the Texas option wouldn’t be a bad idea. A proportion of delegates could come from both contests, with one or the other holding more weight. I really would hate to see the caucus system die.
drinksgreentea Sat 8 Mar 10:13 PM
Bolkcom introduce a bill letting people off for a caucus
People would be able to get up to 4 hours off, unpaid, to attend a caucus.
noneed4thneed Sat 8 Mar 11:09 PM