if hilary won the popular vote, then how come she lost?

[ericlp]

She already conceded. So it's too late for her... Plus her and Obama both being dems I really think she didn't want to drag it out and hurt the dems since Obama pretty much had all the supers so that's the way it goes.

I'm with Harvy. Your vote don't mean Shit. Till the end the electoral college votes then maybe it would be power to the people. If that really is the case, then we all the hoopla about trying to get all the votes? I wonder what would happen if Mccain got all the electoral votes but Obama won the popular vote in a HUGE land slide? I'm sure you'd see some riots and other interesting things.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Yeah no shit the election isn't determined by popular vote. The point is that the disparity between the popular vote and the delegate count tells us something about how the system works and whether it fairly represents the will of the people. I think most people would agree that in a true democracy, everyone's vote should count and count equally.

Unfortunately our government chooses to manipulate the vote of the people with archaic systems based on delegates and electorates. So, just like Bush's election in 2000, I question any result that is not consistent with the popular vote. If more people would question these things maybe we wouldn't still be stuck with the f*d up voting systems in this country.

This is why the OP is confused and I think he/she has every right to be.

This was the most covered, most explained, most detailed primary I've encountered in my lifetime. Anyone who is *still* confused about how it works wasn't paying attention, or is making a shallow attempt at stirring up controversy where none exists.

Were the Clinton's or their supporters complaining about reforming the system in 1992? Were Democrats complaining about the nomination process in 2000 or 2004?

The *only* reason we're being pestered with this simple-minded notion of popular vote is because it was the last desperate move of a political family who expected their coronation into The White House.

Why does Iowa get as many Senate seats as California? Simple: we have checks and balances. House seats are based on population; Senate seats are a check/balance designed for smaller states.

Popular vote allocates most of the pledged delegates in a primary; caucuses and superdelegates are a check/balance designed for smaller states and party leaders.

This country is a representative republic. Our votes do not make decisions; our votes elect leaders who make decisions. Most delegates (pledged and super) are elected officials. If you don't like them, vote them out.

 

[nageov3t]

Were Democrats complaining about the nomination process in 2000 or 2004?

yes, we were.

2000 doesn't really count. since a sitting VP from a hugely popular administration was pretty much a foregone conclusion, but plenty of us were complaining about the system in 2004 and saw our complaints justified when Kerry lost against the most disliked president in history.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: jpeyton
POPULAR VOTE DOESN'T WIN ANYTHING IN PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS

Nomination = Delegate Votes
Presidency = Electoral Votes

Well said



Bottom line here is the DNC Nomination system is setup similar albeit way more complicated to our electoral college.

Effectively keeping states like California not counting as much as 20 states due to population density

Sucks for the losing candidate, like Al Gore, but ultimately it balances the rights of states and tries to prevent mob rule....


Tries....

Uh, what 'balance' is needed to say one citizen's vote should count less than another's?

Why are one state's voters "mob voters" but voters in small states are 'good' voters?

One man, one vote.

It may seem scary for a million people in a city to get a million votes that outweigh fewer people who aren't, but why the special treatment for one group when there are countless such groups who face the same issue in democracy (ask gay people, for example)? And that rule has been there since the population was almost entirely on farms.

No, it's simply a historical anomaly dealing with how to get small states' agreement for the constitution (just like the 3/5 of blacks for southern states), not a principled rule.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: loki8481
but plenty of us were complaining about the system in 2004

Not really.

and saw our complaints justified when Kerry lost against the most disliked president in history.

Hindsight is 20/20. Bush is a GOP institution. He could torch the constitution, run for a third term and still manage to raise $200 million while rallying the GOP base. McCain can't do any of that. He's a lamb the GOP sent to the slaughterhouse.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I could be wrong on this, but wasn't it only like 3-4 caucus states that didn't report their popular vote totals, and even with the estimations of where they'd be at, she still won the popular vote (with MI/FL included).

There were four: IA, NV, WA and...not sure about the last one. Was it ME?

And if you include Michigan, she only wins if you give zero votes to Obama. Per fivethirtyeight.com, there are eight different ways to count Michigan and Obama wins all of them except that one:

1. Ignore Michigan entirely. Obama wins by 155,782 votes.
2. Count Michigan at 100 percent and give no votes to Obama. Clinton wins by 172,527 votes.
3. Count Michigan and give all uncommitted votes to Obama. Obama +65,641.
4. Count Michigan and give all uncommitted and write-in votes to Obama. Obama +93,335.
5. Count Michigan and allocate uncommitted votes based on the preferences of uncommitted voters in exit polls. Obama +6,961.
6. Count Michigan and allocate uncommitted and write-in votes based on exit polls. Obama +28,008
7. Count Michigan and allocate all officially-recorded votes based on exit polls. This may be a truer reflection of voter preference because roughly 20 percent of Hillary Clinton's voters indicated in exit polls that they'd prefer to have voted for another candidate. Obama +90,398.
8. Same as above, but also include write-in votes in the total that we divide among the candidates. Obama +87,351

she lost because Obama used the rules to his advantage -- just look at Texas, where Hillary won the state popular vote and Obama still won more electoral votes. he racked up a string of small-state caucus victories thanks to some enthusiastic supporters and help from moveon.org, and Hillary was never able to overcome the delegate advantage, despite winning several major states even after Obama was long the front runner.

In other words, she lost -- among other reasons -- because she did not adjust her campaign to the realities of the primary.

She lost big in February because her campaign put all its eggs in the Super Tuesday basket and didn't have much of a plan for February 9-19, giving those states just minimal, last-minute staffing. Meanwhile, Obama had paid staff on the ground in every February state upon the conclusion of the Nevada caucuses.

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: sportage
Like Hillary said many times, if it were winner take all, she would have won long ago.
Like the republicans, thats why Mccain won so fast over the others.
As a democrat, I have to add only the democrats could screw up an election process so badly. I still think Howard Dean is a jerk and a moron.
Why they meet and make these retarded rules is beyond logic.
Maybe thats one reason the republicans keep winning where it counts.

And no doubt the democrats will put on another one of their namby pamby love fest conventions, while the republicans go right for the throat.
Remember Zell Miller?

Knowing the Clintons, I was really very surprised she did not go to the SC to change the rules of the DNC nomination process (after the fact), the same way she changed the rules on FL and MI! And the entire nation knows very damn well she and Obama agreed not to count those states for violating the rules. But in the end it was Clinton who violated her own rules or agreement.

They didn't call Bill "Slick Willie" for nothing so it's not surprising if she's called "Slick Hillie"!

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: loki8481
but plenty of us were complaining about the system in 2004

Not really.

well, that's a helluva rebuttal

you're right, there were none of us dean/clark/edwards supporters who looked at the huge importance of a stupid state like Iowa and a contest run more by activists than voters and thought wtf as Iowa turned Kerry into a runaway train. the 4 years I've spent bitching about it must be all in my imagination. heh.

Hindsight is 20/20.

everyone who voted for someone other than Kerry probably disagrees. 2004 should have been a lock for the DNC.

my point isn't that Hillary should have won (who cares, it's over, Obama's always been the more electable candidate) it's that just because the system worked this one time doesn't mean it's perfect.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: tallest1

Originally posted by: loki8481
I could be wrong on this, but wasn't it only like 3-4 caucus states that didn't report their popular vote totals, and even with the estimations of where they'd be at, she still won the popular vote (with MI/FL included).

she lost because Obama used the rules to his advantage -- just look at Texas, where Hillary won the state popular vote and Obama still won more electoral votes. he racked up a string of small-state caucus victories thanks to some enthusiastic supporters and help from moveon.org, and Hillary was never able to overcome the delegate advantage, despite winning several major states even after Obama was long the front runner.

According to the rules agreed on and signed by all candidates, the popular vote count of caucus states would not be a deciding factor, nor would the votes of a state violating DNC rules count.

... right. exactly what I said.

but it doesn't change the fact that she won the popular vote.

edit: also, the DNC decided that MI and FL count, so there.

They decided that FL counted half and MI counted as a 69-59 win for Clinton. If were basing whether or not something should count on the DNC decision, shouldn't their popular votes be adjusted accordingly?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: sportage
Like Hillary said many times, if it were winner take all, she would have won long ago.

In that hypothetical world, what makes you think Obama's campaign wouldn't adjust its campaign to meet the different circumstances?

Now that would be responsible

Like the republicans, thats why Mccain won so fast over the others.
As a democrat, I have to add only the democrats could screw up an election process so badly. I still think Howard Dean is a jerk and a moron.
Why they meet and make these retarded rules is beyond logic.
Maybe thats one reason the republicans keep winning where it counts.

And no doubt the democrats will put on another one of their namby pamby love fest conventions, while the republicans go right for the throat.
Remember Zell Miller?

Probably

 

[nageov3t]

well, Lieberman is speaking at the GOP convention I don't see why he doesn't just stop caucusing with the democrats and give control of the senate back to the republicans.. you'd have to be blind not to see the writing on the wall -- the party is going to kick him to the curb as soon as they don't need him anymore.

 

[RaistlinZ]

Originally posted by: JEDI
thought # delegates = # of population of state?

so if she had majority of votes, then why did she not have the majority of delegates?

Ugh.. she lost. Get over it. Can we please move on already?

 

[Aegeon]

A final point to note is in the Democratic Primary, when trying to total a popular vote you're comparing apples and oranges regardless.

Because caucus states generally require arriving for the caucus and sometimes staying there for hours for the entire caucus process, substantially fewer people will show up in comparison to when you're talking about a primary. Suddenly changing to the total popular vote mattering towards the end of the primary process penalizes all the status who picked the caucus option instead of the primary assuming that the rules would not suddenly be changed after the fact on them. Since Obama did better in almost all the caucus states, you're hurting him considerably by switching to counting the popular vote, which is why Hillary went to it in the first place as her new argument. Of course as I noted the popular vote is not a very true and accurate measure of popular support in this situation.

This is before you even get into all the issues of what states have their popular votes counted and under what circumstances, not to mention you suddenly completely eliminate the impact of the actual caucus which was held in Texas, even though it was supported to count and be a relevant part of the vote. (Anyone who for some reason didn't manage to vote but did make it to the Texas Caucus would be disenfranchised by going to the popular vote only unless the caucus was counted as well, but that would create all kinds of problems of its own.)

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
POPULAR VOTE DOESN'T WIN ANYTHING IN PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS

Nomination = Delegate Votes
Presidency = Electoral Votes

You have to admit its more than a little ironic though.......

Popular vote winner doesn't get the nod.
Votes blatantly not being counted in Michigan and Florida (where was the good Rev's on this one, you don't have to answer that I already know).
People up on high deciding who should get the nod rather than the citizens.

You can't make for a more ironic situation than for the DNC to spend countless days, weeks, and months trying to figure out how TO DISENFRANCHISE Michigan and Florida voters and not look bad for it.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: JEDI

Topic Title: if hilary won the popular vote, then how come she lost?

The assumption that she won the popular is questionable, at best. Hillary won the popular vote only if you count the votes from Florida and Michigan, both of which violated the rules set by the party, and ignore the results of the states that held caucuses, instead of primary elections. Hillary and every other Democratic candidate pledged not to campaign in those states, and every candidate, except Hillary, withdrew from the race in Michigan.

If you want a better question, think about the problems with the electoral college. Gore won the popular vote, and he lost. If the will of the people had determined that election, we wouldn't have had the Bushwhackos' horrific war of lies in Iraq.

The fact that Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan should mean that their votes are meaningless.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: sportage
Like Hillary said many times, if it were winner take all, she would have won long ago.
Like the republicans, thats why Mccain won so fast over the others.
As a democrat, I have to add only the democrats could screw up an election process so badly. I still think Howard Dean is a jerk and a moron.
Why they meet and make these retarded rules is beyond logic.
Maybe thats one reason the republicans keep winning where it counts.

And no doubt the democrats will put on another one of their namby pamby love fest conventions, while the republicans go right for the throat.
Remember Zell Miller?

Winning where it counts? I'd say the only win the counts is who has the most votes in Congress. You may want to double-check your facts on that one.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: jpeyton
POPULAR VOTE DOESN'T WIN ANYTHING IN PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS

Nomination = Delegate Votes
Presidency = Electoral Votes

Well said



Bottom line here is the DNC Nomination system is setup similar albeit way more complicated to our electoral college.

Effectively keeping states like California not counting as much as 20 states due to population density

Sucks for the losing candidate, like Al Gore, but ultimately it balances the rights of states and tries to prevent mob rule....


Tries....

Uh, what 'balance' is needed to say one citizen's vote should count less than another's?

Why are one state's voters "mob voters" but voters in small states are 'good' voters?

One man, one vote.

It may seem scary for a million people in a city to get a million votes that outweigh fewer people who aren't, but why the special treatment for one group when there are countless such groups who face the same issue in democracy (ask gay people, for example)? And that rule has been there since the population was almost entirely on farms.

No, it's simply a historical anomaly dealing with how to get small states' agreement for the constitution (just like the 3/5 of blacks for southern states), not a principled rule.

Let's say the country is made of 10,000 Californians and 1 Alaskan

In a popular vote, the Alaskan's vote doesn't count at all. The Californians will vote for a candidate regardless of his policies regarding Alaska (maybe the candidate wants to nuke Alaska).

In a more balanced vote, the Alaskan's vote counts for something. His state is part of the union. There are fewer Alaskans, but no one wants one state to control everything.

If we went by popular vote, California and New England would determine the outcome of nearly every election due to sheer size. I know a lot of people don't go out and vote because of the electoral college; I suspect every Californian would toss their card into the hat in a popular vote contest, but then half of the states wouldn't matter.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
You can't make for a more ironic situation than for the DNC to spend countless days, weeks, and months trying to figure out how TO DISENFRANCHISE Michigan and Florida voters and not look bad for it.

why the hell did FL and MI jump the gun anyway? All I keep reading is they did, and broke the rules. While I think the system is retarded, the rules were set in place. If you don't like them, push to get them changed to something more reasonable.

 

[SSSnail]

So, basically, all of you Obotsma just said "HEY, WE PLAYED BY THE RULES, AND WE'VE GOTTEN THE NOMINATION", but will probably lose when it REALLY matters.

So sad, amirite?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: jpeyton
POPULAR VOTE DOESN'T WIN ANYTHING IN PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS

Nomination = Delegate Votes
Presidency = Electoral Votes

You have to admit its more than a little ironic though.......

Popular vote winner doesn't get the nod.
Votes blatantly not being counted in Michigan and Florida (where was the good Rev's on this one, you don't have to answer that I already know).
People up on high deciding who should get the nod rather than the citizens.

You can't make for a more ironic situation than for the DNC to spend countless days, weeks, and months trying to figure out how TO DISENFRANCHISE Michigan and Florida voters and not look bad for it.

What are you talking about? The DNC has to set rules for when primaries happen. Considering states always want their primaries to be first, if the DNC didn't put any controls on the process you would end up having primaries in 2009 for the 2012 presidential election. The DNC has pretty much no power to sanction these states in any way other then by limiting the usefulness of their primaries. What else do you suggest they do? (note: the end result of the DNC's decision pretty much just halved each state's say. this is the same thing that the RNC did.)

I have to say I'm not really buying your 'i'm an independent' shtick. I can't imagine someone who was soberly looking at the issues you've brought up lately from an objective point of view would be saying these sorts of things. If you are a Republican or trend conservative that's totally fine, but you can just come out and say it.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
So, basically, all of you Obotsma just said "HEY, WE PLAYED BY THE RULES, AND WE'VE GOTTEN THE NOMINATION", but will probably lose when it REALLY matters.

So sad, amirite?

So dumb, and forturnately for our nation, you are wrong. :laugh:

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
So, basically, all of you Obotsma just said "HEY, WE PLAYED BY THE RULES, AND WE'VE GOTTEN THE NOMINATION", but will probably lose when it REALLY matters.

So sad, amirite?

I think they're saying that Obama's campaign knows that understanding the rules and adapting to them gives you a better chance of winning any election.

Am I right?

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: SSSnail
So, basically, all of you Obotsma just said "HEY, WE PLAYED BY THE RULES, AND WE'VE GOTTEN THE NOMINATION", but will probably lose when it REALLY matters.

So sad, amirite?

So dumb, and forturnately for our nation, you are wrong. :laugh:

For our sakes, I hope I'm wrong going by the "lesser of two evils" rule. Time will tell. Or, I can just borrow the "Tell all future events" crystal ball of yours...

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: JEDI
thought # delegates = # of population of state?

so if she had majority of votes, then why did she not have the majority of delegates?

The Rules

8. NATIONAL CONVENTION DELEGATE APPORTIONMENT

A. Apportionment of district-level delegates within states shall be based on one of the following:

1. A formula giving equal weight to total population and to the average of the vote for the Democratic candidates in the two most recent presidential elections;

2. A formula giving equal weight to the vote for the Democratic candidates in the most recent presidential and gubernatorial elections;

3. A formula giving equal weight to the average of the vote for the Democratic candidates in the two most recent presidential elections and to Democratic Party registration or enrollment as of January 1, 2008; or

4. A formula giving one-third (1/3) weight to each of the formulas in items (1), (2), and (3).

B. Apportionment for each body selecting delegates to state, district, and county conventions shall be based upon population and/or some measure of Democratic strength.

C. The Call for the 2008 Convention shall state the base delegation for each delegation. Seventy-five percent (75%) of each state?s base delegation shall be elected at the congressional district level or smaller. Twenty-five percent (25%) of each state?s base delegation shall be elected at large. Delegates so elected shall hereafter be termed ?district-level? and ?at-large? delegates, respectively. Each State Democratic Chair shall certify all delegates in writing to the Secretary of the DNC.

D. In those states with more than one congressional district, after the election of district-level delegates and prior to the selection of at-large delegates, each State Democratic Chair shall certify pledged party leader and elected official delegates equal to 15% of the state?s base delegation selected pursuant to Rule 9.

E. The election of district-level and at-large delegates and alternates may take place at the same meeting, provided that district-level delegates are selected first. In states with one congressional district the election of delegates selected in accordance with Rules 8.B., 8.C., and 9.A., may be conducted simultaneously. In all cases, affirmative action and fair reflection guidelines must be met and the Democratic Chair of each such state shall make the certifications required by subsection 8.D.


9. UNPLEDGED AND PLEDGED PARTY LEADERS AND ELECTED OFFICIAL DELEGATES

1. The individuals recognized as members of the DNC (as set forth in Article Three, Sections 2 and 3 of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States); and,

2. The Democratic President and the Democratic Vice President of the United States, if applicable; and,

3. All Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives and all Democratic members of the United States Senate; and,

4. The Democratic Governor, if applicable; and,

5. All former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee.

 

[lupi]

RIP 2000 Stolen Presidential election claims; at least now we no longer have to listen to those.