Why is the popular vote so unpopular?
Note: This article originally appeared on pinkomag.com.
Hillary Clinton wants you to know that she has won the popular vote. She has even gone as fas as to evoke Al Gore by saying that we Democrats should not allow an election to be snatched away from the candidate who has won the popular vote. This would be a provocative argument if it where not for one inconvenient truth. Her math just doesn't make sense.
Hillary is asking that we accept a few stipulations in order for us to come up with her popular vote numbers:
1: Accept the Florida votes as cast in a primary that she herself said wasn't going to count, and that Harold Ickes (one of her lead advisers) helped craft the rules for.</li>
2: Accept that Michigan be counted as well and that none of the hundreds of thousands of voters who voted against her by pulling the lever for "uncommitted" get counted for Obama, whose name didn't appear on the ballot but who was certainly the candidate of choice for many of those people.
3: Finally take an even bigger leap and accept that voters in primary states should count more then voters in caucus states. This is not some sort of primary vs. caucus argument. We aren't talking about which method is more procedurally valid. We are talking pure mathmatics. Let me explain...
The oft quoted popular vote totals give inordinate weight to primary states because the "votes" counted for caucus states like Iowa are the initial delegate numbers (local representatives), not actual voters. For example, the Iowa count has 1,677 "votes" even though something like 236,000 people voted. You encounter similar problems when looking at states like Nevada, Washington, Maine etc...
Gary Langer, the director of polling at ABC News, has an interesting rundown of the numbers if you include an estimate of the actual votes from the caucus states. His figures? As of May 16th, 17,607,152 for Obama and 17,504,742 for Clinton, or an Obama lead of about 102,410 votes.
Now, this does not include all those votes from Hillary's landslide victory in Kentucky (or Obama's landslide victory in Oregon) so when we factor those in, with 97% of Oregon reporting it's more like 18,176,329 for Obama and 18,214,506 for Clinton, or a Clinton lead of about 38,177 votes. That's with Michigan and Florida included. So Hillary is winning the popular vote, but only if you are being very charitable.
Look for that lead to all but disappear if Obama picks up any more states in early June. Also, if you give Obama even one fifth of the 238,168 uncommitted votes from Michigan...
Well, I'll let you do the math.
Hillary Clinton wants you to know that she has won the popular vote. She has even gone as fas as to evoke Al Gore by saying that we Democrats should not allow an election to be snatched away from the candidate who has won the popular vote. This would be a provocative argument if it where not for one inconvenient truth. Her math just doesn't make sense.
Hillary is asking that we accept a few stipulations in order for us to come up with her popular vote numbers:
1: Accept the Florida votes as cast in a primary that she herself said wasn't going to count, and that Harold Ickes (one of her lead advisers) helped craft the rules for.</li>
2: Accept that Michigan be counted as well and that none of the hundreds of thousands of voters who voted against her by pulling the lever for "uncommitted" get counted for Obama, whose name didn't appear on the ballot but who was certainly the candidate of choice for many of those people.
3: Finally take an even bigger leap and accept that voters in primary states should count more then voters in caucus states. This is not some sort of primary vs. caucus argument. We aren't talking about which method is more procedurally valid. We are talking pure mathmatics. Let me explain...
The oft quoted popular vote totals give inordinate weight to primary states because the "votes" counted for caucus states like Iowa are the initial delegate numbers (local representatives), not actual voters. For example, the Iowa count has 1,677 "votes" even though something like 236,000 people voted. You encounter similar problems when looking at states like Nevada, Washington, Maine etc...
Gary Langer, the director of polling at ABC News, has an interesting rundown of the numbers if you include an estimate of the actual votes from the caucus states. His figures? As of May 16th, 17,607,152 for Obama and 17,504,742 for Clinton, or an Obama lead of about 102,410 votes.
Now, this does not include all those votes from Hillary's landslide victory in Kentucky (or Obama's landslide victory in Oregon) so when we factor those in, with 97% of Oregon reporting it's more like 18,176,329 for Obama and 18,214,506 for Clinton, or a Clinton lead of about 38,177 votes. That's with Michigan and Florida included. So Hillary is winning the popular vote, but only if you are being very charitable.
Look for that lead to all but disappear if Obama picks up any more states in early June. Also, if you give Obama even one fifth of the 238,168 uncommitted votes from Michigan...
Well, I'll let you do the math.
Advertisement
Once again, Hillary has been highly successful in playing the media. Her talk about popular vote should have been laughed out right at the outset. Instead, everyone is talking about it.
Not only doesn't popular vote decide Democratic nomination (just like it doesn't decide presidential elections), it's impossible to even define what it is given the mix of caucuses, open, and closed primaries. That's not even mentioning Florida or Michigan, where the primaries were clearly held under invalid conditions.
The truth is that states manage the nomination process independently and it is impossible to get accurate countrywide popular vote count, since that requires adding apples and oranges.
But I'm looking forward to hearing Camp Hillary whining some more about how the media has been unfair to her.
May 26, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't tell you how pleased I am to see this conversation about the caucus and primary states being made on TPM. For what it's worth, I have been concerned about the lack of attention to this issue in the MSM going back several months. I have written several blogs on this topic, even talking about apples and oranges. The first one was on March 5th, "The Popular Vote Myth (or why caucuses may be hazardous to your representation)"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/page/2/
A more recent one, "Snapshot Polls and the Popular vote: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/
May 26, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please be considerate to other contributors here and do not cross-post verbatim articles from other sites. Every new Reader Post bumps some new, possibly original article, off the Recent list.
Thanks.
May 26, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a cross-post that he wrote. It happens regularly, and seems fine for him to make the point without having to write a whole new post. I don't frequent pinkomag, kos, huffpost, etc., so I appreciate the crossposts--from the writers themselves.
Quoting someone else's post instead of the juicy bits, a link, and the poster's author's thoughts on the subject is out of line.
May 26, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I meant not cutting and pasting someone else's post.
May 26, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand that point of view, but I still disagree. As long as there's a strict limit on the number of visible Recent posts, I don't think that cutting and pasting of articles from elsewhere, even if it's by the same person, is appropriate.
I don't have any statistics, but my impression is that many articles that are cross-posted like this rarely have participation by the poster in the comments. IOW, it looks like it's mostly a tactic to attempt to drive traffic to another site or build visibility for the author. I don't think that's appropriate, either.
It seems to me that if someone wants to take advantage of the eyeballs and clicks here, they should at least be willing to post original, unique articles. TPM's Cafe should be more than a clearing house for articles on other sites.
Finally, it does say in the Posting Guidelines:
I don't see a caveat there, nor do I think one is required.
Just my $0.02.
May 26, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken. My bad.
July 3, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, codegen86. Caucuses and closed primaries and partly open primaries and fully open primaries are such a mixed bag that comparisons are open to many interpretations. You can count on each campaign picking the most self serving interpretations.
But the shortest answer is pretty simple: the nomination goes to whoever has the most delegates. Those are the rules. For the Clintons, when they don't like the rules, they break them. Rules are for someone else. When they don't like the rules, they start talking, and talking, and talking, until everyone gets Clinton-talk fatigue, and just gives in to their distorted view of reality.
This nomination might be the first thing Billary couldn't talk their way into. I'll believe it when I see it, though...
May 26, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a good reason: If the popular vote were the primary factor for deciding a nominee, then the candidates would simply camp out and pander to voters in CA, TX, NY, IL, and FL. Everybody else would just have to go screw themselves. The candidates could just blow off the concerns of every other state. The electoral college sucks, but it just might be the best system.
May 26, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you admit the popular vote is important. Good. Hillary has won it by several calculations. In the next week or so she will win it by several more. I would also turn your attention toward the electoral map. There's a lot of bad news there for Obama.
May 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Calculations" in the sense that 1 + 1 = 3 is a "calculation." The result just happens to be wrong.
May 26, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ask President Dukakis about the electoral map in May/June before the election. I have seen several maps that show both Dems over the 270 needed. That is all that is needed. And President Kerry had the map during the summer, too. We are still in the primary delegate race, remember? Delegates. Such a pesky thing. When asked about his experience, Barry said watch how I run my campaign. How many vendors, including public universities, is Clinton stiffing? This is a sore spot for me since Bush/Cheney 04 trashed the local HS football field right before the start of the school year and never paid the district back.
May 26, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a question: when Hillary counts her "primary" votes in MI, is she giving none to Obama? It wouldn't surprise me if she left the popular vote skewed the way she would if she had her way in the rules and credentials committee.
May 26, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is correct. Clinton counts for herself votes cast for her in the illegitimate Michigan primary. Since Obama was such a Democrat and pulled his name off the ballot as they agreed to, he gets 0 votes from that same illegitimate, undemocratic Michigan primary.
Obama's adherence to "rules," "laws" and "principles" is deeply troubling.
May 26, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Popular vote is wonderful and dandy and perfect for general elections to decide who gets to control levers of power and represent the people.
For party primaries? Maybe, maybe not. That's up to the parties to decide. This time around, they decided to go by delegate counts. Clinton agreed to that, I might add. Oh but look who's leading now, Sen Obama! Funny how that's the one measure Clinton no longer considers a valid one for determining who gets nominated...
May 26, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
because under the rules of the democratic party's nominating process, the poplular vote doenst matter. the only thing that matters is delegates.
up until it became clear that hillary wasn't going to win the delegates, her campaign made it perfectly clear that "this is about delegates."
May 26, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The popular vote isn't unpopular..it simply is not the decisive criteria for WINNING whether it is Democratic primaries or the general election.
No matter how popular the popular vote is it does not determine the winner?
Can you understand that? Just as football game is not determined by how many passes the QB throws. It is touchdowns and field goals that determine the score and the winner of the game.
During the democratic primaries it is DELEGATES. Those are the rules so no matter how many ways you want to figure the popular vote..it doesn't count. It is a LOSING argument because it is AGAINST the RULES!!!
Democratic primaries can be open or closed as well as they can be caucuses because the winner is determined by delegates. So even, if all the GOP came out and voted in a particular district they could not skew the election because the district DELEGATES have been awarded based on DEMOCRATIC turnout in prior years! The more heavily a district votes DEMOCRATIC the MORE delegates they are awarded. So even if the number of voters tripled in solidly DEMOCRAT district due to GOP voters crossing over, that DISTRICT would still only count for x number of delegates.
That is why it is FAIR and that is why the popular vote doesn't count!!
Furthermore, in case you are unaware of it. Voters have no right to vote in a primary or have their votes counted as primaries are one by the political parties and both parties are PRIVATE and they get to make their own rules. THUS, they can penalize STATES for not complying with the RULES.
Given that it is a private enterprise, it is completely fair to penalize MI and FL. Florida's votes should not count AT ALL and neither should MI's votes count. What should count are the delegates and that is the only scenario that would come close to being fair.
The Democratic party should strip each state of 50% of their delegates right OFF the top. THEN after penalizing them with half their delegates. ONLY then should a decision be made as to how to allocate the remaining unpenalized delegates between Hillary and Obama.
Obama should receive more delegates than Hillary simply because he FOLLOWED the rules and complied with the party's request not to campaign in FL and to support the party rules by removing his name from the ballot. Those good faith actions on Obama's part should be rewarded by the party as a message to future candidates.
Given that scenario Obama would be awarded all of the uncommitted delegates and Hillary would only receive 2/3rds of the delegate total for the percentage of votes she receives.
In Fl, Obama should be rewarded by splitting the total remaining delegates in half EQUALLY between Hillary and Obama as he obeyed the party rules and did not campaign there.
Further, we know that in 23 states where he was trailing Clinton by 20 points or more he was able to come within 2 points of her and/or surpass her in the polls, not to mention how he trounced her with over 60% or more of the vote in seventeen states.
Giving Obama the same benefit doubt had he campaigned based on the track record of his winning it is REASONABLE to assume that Hillary might have tied Obama in Fl...thus splitting the delegates equitably in half (after the 50% penalty) would be the fairest way to resolve the issue of sitting the Fl delegation and putting the entire popular vote argument to rest.
May 26, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the interview with the Argus paper (and I don't have the link - sorry) Sentor Clinton says it's not the math, it's the map. Is that map a Rove "the math" construt?
Why does Sentor Clinton keep counting different thing different ways? It gets very confusing. I also don't understand why she doesn't have more money if she is more popular. What's that all about?
May 26, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although everything you said is pretty much the same stuff I've heard and said before myself to the millionth degree, it's a nice compilation without any of the side-tracked comments and/or arguments.
May 26, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because popular vote is a myth.
It doesn't exist in the primary. It can't even be defined - I would maintain that the caucus were nothing more than popular votes. Voters, like me, lined up and voted again in the caucuses.
Doesn't matter - those numbers have already been folded into the poll vote numbers in order to determine the number of delegates from Texas for each candidate.
What does Popular Vote mean, even? They've never said because they know this is all a big ass Smoke and Mirrors scare campaign trying to raise the Super Delegates' and voters' anxieties about what happened to Al Gore.
And there is no comparison -that was an election - this is not..
May 26, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
As many people who voted in Mich and Fl primaries, there were a lot of people who didn't. I don't see how we can act like it doesn't matter that some people actually thought the votes wouldn't count.
May 27, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink