Quote:
Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout
Such BS - you either have a first-past-the-post system or you have proportional representation. You can't change the rules half way through the game, which is the way she seems to want to play it.
I think I can remember one year when the Lib Dems actually had more votes nationally than Labour in the general election but still came in a sorry 3rd on the first-past-the-post basis. It sucks, perhaps, but those are the rules we play by. And now she should gracefully retire from the scene.
|
As most everyone knows, the Democratic party's nomination process is a delegate-based one. But what doesn't get discussed much when Hillary makes her popular vote argument is just HOW delegate based it is.
First, every state has different voting methods. Some have closed primaries where only Democrats can vote for Democrats. Some have open primaries, where people registered to any party can vote for Democrats. And then others have caucuses, in which smaller groups get together and have old-timey debates and discussions about the candidates and then vote. Even if we only consider these factors, we can see that the popular vote is an unreliable measure of support. In many states, you had Republicans, encouraged by people like Rush Limbaugh, voting for Hillary in an effort to extend the race. And clearly, caucuses don't give a good idea of what the popular vote numbers would be...they don't even report exact numbers of how many people voted in them.
But even beyond that, the delegates awarded from county to county are based not on sheer numbers of people, but on Democratic loyalty. Say you had two counties, each with a population of 100 people. The first county is made up of 10 registered Democrats, and 90 registered Republicans, and consistently votes Republican in elections. The second county is the exact opposite, with 10 registered Republicans and 90 registered Democrats, and consistently votes Democratic. The second county that consistently votes Democratic would have more delegates alloted to them than the first, effectively giving their votes more weight.
So it's not only a delegate-based system - it's actually structured in a way that makes it impossible to keep track of what the actual popular vote totals are. That's why, on CNN at least, they present multiple scenarios when discussing the popular vote. "If you count caucus estimates...", "if you count Michigan...", "if you blah blah blah...."
And of course, when it comes to Hillary's claim that she has the popular vote, she's happy to count all the Republican votes cast purely in an effort to hurt the Democratic party, but discards the caucus votes despite the fact that caucuses are typically run by the most passionate Democrats in the country. And more importantly, at it's foundation, her argument is basically along the lines of saying that if this were a soccer/football game, then she should win based on how long she had possession of the ball, not on goals. And as far as she's concerned, who cares if no one else knew they were playing for possession time and instead racked up more goals?
All she's accomplishing at this point is working her most fervent supporters into a frothy excitement over the prospect of going to Denver and trying to steal the nomination away from Obama. Hardly party unity.