There are 6 ways to count the popular vote in the Democratic Primary. In 4 of them, Hillary is behind. In 2 of them, Hillary is ahead.Here are the facts:
(1) There are two kinds of state elections to select a nominee: A primary (where people walk into voting booths) and a caucus (where people stand around in a big room and shout). It's easy to know how many people voted in a primary by counting votes. It's not so easy to know how many people voted in a caucus... but a pretty fair estimate can be made. Obama won all of the caucus states (Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington) by a combined margin of 110,000 votes.
(2) Michigan votes can either be counted, or not counted at all, depending on your point of view. Since Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, and Hillary received 100% of the 325,000 votes cast (which is more votes than Obama received in any of 35 different states), it's not really fair to count them.
(3) Florida votes can either be counted, or not counted at all either. In Florida, Hillary wasn't really supposed to campaign there, but she did anyway. Obama didn't. Hillary gained an additional 300,000 votes over Obama by doing this. It's hard to say how much she improved her "victory margin" in Florida by being the only candidate campaigning there, but it surely helped.
So, here is the math:
- If you just take primary votes (without Florida or Michigan), Obama leads by 458,000 votes.
- If you take primary and caucus votes (without FL and MI), Obama leads by 568,000.
- If you take away the caucus votes and add in Florida, Obama leads by 163,000.
- If you take add the caucus votes and add in Florida, Obama leads by 273,000.
- If you take away the caucus votes and add in Florida and Michigan, then Clinton leads by 164,000.
- If you add the caucus votes and add in Florida and Michigan, then Clinton leads by 54,000.
4 comments:
This has got to be the craziest system in the world for voting. Some places you can vote individually for whichever candidate you like on a one vote one count basis, then you have other places counting a show of hands, then you have places where you are only ALLOWED to vote for ONE candidate, then you have places where anyones votes are ignored. What happened to the "one person, one vote" system where he/she who gets most wins or has America got a rule for itself and another rule it supports for everywhere else. At least other countries rules are simple if corrupt!! Signed, totally confused!!
The reason for the electoral college in America is simple: There is no such thing as a nation-wide election in America, only state-wide (and each state has its own rules). Therefore, the people of a state vote on which candidate for president they prefer, and (based on a one-person-one-vote process) each state choses its candidate for President based on that vote, and then sends representatives — members of the electoral college — to the national level to speak on behalf of their state.
In England, of course, MPs pick the Prime Minister, but the Americans wanted to keep a separation between the legislative and executive branches, and therefore removed the "president-picking" authority from the purview of the Congress and gave it back to the American people.
The famous "caucus" hearkens back to the turn of the century Tammany Hall, where politics was better played (and probably more-honestly played) with large groups of people and a show of hands. It may seem crazy (and in today's world it isn't really necessary), but it is a great American political tradition.
As far as votes being ignored (as in Florida or Michigan), that isn't possible in an actual election. Primary voting is not something that is handled by any federal election commission, but instead is handled by the political parties themselves, which are not actually part of the federal government. They have lots of rules restricting who can vote in their primaries, including but not limited to having registered, having identification, and having residency. And, obviously, the political parties can (and do) disqualify entire states for breaking the rules that the political parties have set forth for the primary process.
So, Mr. Totally Confused, to summarize: All elections are "one person, one vote" at the state level, whether it is based on a lever pulled at a voting machine, a slip of paper put in a ballot box, or a hand raised at a caucus. That's the rule this loose confederation of American states has had for over 200 years. If the United States of Europe want to try a pan-European "one person, one vote" system and apply the outcomes of their votes to all the different European states equally, they are more than welcome to. American states, however, chose not to.
Nice informative reply. Thanks
I just thought I should add this before I get snarky comments correcting me: I over-generalized about the fact that the FEC (Federal Election Commission) has no role in primary elections. The FEC and election laws have a very large role in all aspects of the primaries. However, the people who "qualify" (or are disqualified) to vote are determined first and foremost by the political parties themselves (within the framework of election law as it is written, of course).
To clarify: Disqualify a vast quantity of American citizens from voting in a primary is absolutely allowed. Disqualify a vast quantity of American citizens from voting in an actual election is basically impossible... common stories of voter disenfranchisement in America notwithstanding.
Post a Comment