It should be no surprise to anyone at this point that it’s delegates — not votes — that decide each political party’s nominee for President.
What is a delegate?
Each state or territory is allotted a certain amount of pledged delegates. Currently there are 3,253 pledged delegates. Large states have a lot of pledged delegates. Small states have fewer delegates. How many voters does each pledged delegates represent?
That depends. Take a state like California. It has the most Democratic pledged delegates at 370. A total of 4,794,846 Democrats voted in the California Primary. That means that each California pledged delegate represents 12,959.04 California Democratic voters.
On the other end of the spectrum is Wyoming. It has a total of 12 Democratic pledged delegates. A total of 8,689 Democrats cast their votes in March for the Presidential nominee. That means that each Wyoming pledged delegate represents 724.08 Wyoming Democratic voters.
Why are the Democrats in Wyoming more important then Democrats in California?
They aren’t more important. We just have a really stupid and archaic method of choosing our President. In 2000 we elected a President that received less votes then his opponent. Now we Democrats are about to select a nominee for President that received less votes then his opponent. Why doesn’t this fact bother anyone?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
21 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Moving the goalposts again, I see.
Not that I don’t love sports cliches, but I’m not moving the goalposts. I’m just stating the facts. One candidate has has more votes. One candidate has more delegates. I’m just wondering why delegates are more important then people.
Moving the goalposts would be flying to Iowa and announcing to the world that you have just achieved a majority of pledged delegates.
Saying Obama has won a majority of elected delegates is not moving goalposts, it is a statement of fact. Whining about delegates at this point is just pathetic. Get the fuck over it.
When was winning a majority of PLEDGED delegates ever one of the benchmarks cited as deciding who should get the nomination? In that case, why even have both pledged and unpledged delegates? The truth is, I thought the popular vote was important in 2000 and I think it’s important now.
And you know what’s pathetic “John Smith”? Hiding behind a made up fake name and slinging shit. Grow a spine.
I’ve come here for awhile now and I have enjoyed your blog. However, with this democratic contest you are way off.
You claim that the person with the most votes in the Democratic Primary may not win the nomination (I’m talking about the person with the most popular votes and not the person with most delegates). However, the only math that gives Hillary Clinton the popular vote in the Democratic nomination is by including the popular vote in the disputed states of Florida and Michigan. If you just use Florida which had both Clinton and Obama on the ballot, she is still not winning the overall popular vote. He is winning in that case by 125,141 votes. If you add Michigan to the mix where Obama was not even on the ballot she is winning by 203,168 votes. However, people had the opportunity to vote “uncommitted” and 238,168 people did just that. More people voted for not-Hillary then voted for Hillary. In an election this close it merely illustrates how difficult running an election for a population of over 300 people.
I have no problem with people supporting Hillary Clinton; I’m going to vote for her in the general election if she secures the nomination. I just find it dishonest for people to claim that she is winning the popular vote when that is only true if you exclude certain candidates.
I agree we need a better system for choosing our president. The Clinton supporters throw out the saying “one person, one vote”, when in reality that is hardly true. The Electoral College favors smaller states. Each state is allocated one electoral vote for each of its representatives. So my home here in Arizona we have ten electoral votes. We have two electors for our senators and eight more electors for each of our representatives to the House of Representatives. With a population of more than 6 million people, we have one electoral vote for every 633,866.6 people. In a smaller state like Wyoming, they have 3 total electoral votes. For each 164,594 people they have an electoral vote. Hardly one person equaling one vote. Why should Wyoming have more of a say in our president than Arizonans, or any state? This is not getting into the shenanigans that can be caused by the Electoral College can provide if they chose to do so.
Brandon, more people have voted for Clinton then have voted for Obama. Granted, the fact the Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot (his choice) and his lawyers are fighting a revote in Michigan contribute to that fact.
In truth, it doesn’t matter who is winning the popular vote until every vote has been cast. That hasn’t happened yet.
The BS notion that Clinton is “winning the popular vote” hinges on not including Iowa, Maine, Nevada, and Washington — so much for counting all the votes. Apparently some votes don’t count after all. Of course, if “it doesn’t matter who is winning the popular vote until every vote has been cast,” then what’s the purpose of this post, Rick?
Iowa, Maine, Nevada, and Washington don’t vote. They caucus. And Hillary won the caucus in Nevada. Some would argue that when working people are allowed to caucus where they work — like in Nevada — Obama doesn’t do so well.
What’s the purpose of this post? To point out how absurd it would be if the Democratic nominee wasn’t the candidate that had the most votes.
You do realize, of course, what people do at caucuses? They…cast…votes. Oh, right. Hillary lost a bunch of caucuses, ergo they don’t count.
Obama was following the rules when it came to taking his name off of the Michigan ballot. Clinton chose not to do so. The leadership of the Democratic Party said that under the early voting conditions of the Michigan primary weren’t kosher. Obama decide that he should honor the fact and not stay on the ballot. Hillary did not. So what is the proper solution to the problems of Michigan and Florida?
As for caucus voting, well, the states chose that way to determine their delegates. Does that mean that those votes shouldn’t count or should count less?
In reality anyone can run for President. There is really no formal recognition of political parties when it comes to picking a president. When we are choosing delegates to the convention, what is actually happening is the Republican and Democratic parties are deciding to put the support of the party machinery behind a candidate. The people are really inconsequential when it comes to electing a president.
I agree that our system of choosing a leader is in desperate need of change. However, it won’t come until enough people feel disenfranchised about voting that they put their political will behind a change.
If Obama wins the nomination will you support him
Brandon, there was no rule about taking names off the ballot. This is a myth spread by the anti-Hillary/Pro-Obama crowd. Obama and Edwards chose to do this in an attempt to look favorable to the people in Iowa. It was a political ploy that had it’s own built in advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I don’t think a Democrat should ever not allow someone to vote for them.
As far as caucuses are concerned, why should they award more delegates then comparable primaries? Far fewer people participate in caucus, yet a substantial disproportional amount of delegates are awarded using them.
As far as Michigan and Florida is concerned, they should have a re-vote in Michigan and keep Florida as-is. Both Obama and Clinton were on the ballot in Florida. Neither campaigned in the state, though Obama did buy national TV spots that ran in Florida.
Will I support Obama if he gets the nomination? Well, it looks as though he has awarded himself the nomination already. I actually voted for him in the Maryland primary and I felt good doing it. I’ve since changed my mind.
That’s not correct. People do not “vote” at a caucus. You’re mixing your terminology. People vote at a primary. They caucus at a caucus.
“They caucus at a caucus.”
By…casting…votes. I’m surprised I have to explain this. Wait, no I’m not.
So how exactly are the votes cast in a caucus? Electronically? Paper punch ballot?
At my caucus, we cast paper ballots. I don’t know how other states do it, but the irony of deadenders like yourself trying to pretend the caucuses in IA, ME, NV, and WA didn’t happen while simultaneously whining about FL and MI is really, really, really entertaining. Of course, you’re the same guy who wrote a post whining about the popular vote and then declared “it doesn’t matter who is winning the popular vote until every vote has been cast” when you got called on your BS.
To get an idea of what goes on inside a caucus, take a look at the following YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnh-136QqO8
People should be allowed to cast a vote for whoever they support. It shouldn’t make a difference if the candidate is considered viable or not.
Deadender? Add another word to the list of terms you don’t understand. And my point about it not mattering NOW who is winning the popular vote — even though it’s Hillary — is because there are people who haven’t voted yet. The number will change.
The reason I blogged about it last night was because Obama flew to Iowa to have his very own MISSION ACCOMPLISHED moment.
Um, no. He went to Iowa, where he won his first elected delegates, to note the fact (one that even you, in your fever dreams, don’t try to dispute) that he’s won a majority of pledged delegates. I know that facts make baby Ricky cry, but facts are facts nonetheless.
I don’t mind you coming here to voice your opinion even if it’s different then mine. With that said, if you feel the need to insult me, post your real name.
I am aware that you voted for Obama in your primary, yet you no longer support him. However, what I was trying to ask, is given the current circumstances, if Obama is the choice of the Democratic ticket and McCain is the candidate for the Republicans, will you support him? If so will it be a hold your nose and cast your ballot?
As for Obama choosing to take his name off the ballot, it may have been a political move to please the golden cow of the Iowa Caucus, however, was it probably the right thing to do.
As for the caucuses, why don’t we count their votes as part of the total? Those people have no more of a choice of kind of primary that they have as do the people of Florida and Michigan. Putting aside the political rhetoric of Obama vs. Clinton, do the caucus voters (caucusesers) really count less because of the flawed system?
Will I vote for Obama in November? I hope I’m not faced with that choice. I hope that Hillary retains or even adds to her lead in the popular vote and the superdelegates wise up and realize that only Hillary has a chance of winning against McCain.
I disagree that it was the right for Obama to take his name off the ballot. It’s never a good thing to take your name of the ballot. Why didn’t he take his name off the other states that broke the DNC rules and moved their primaries up?
From DNC Delegate Selection Rule 11A:
The rules were not only broken by Florida and Michigan, but also by Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Why is Dean trying to disenfranchise only Michigan and Florida?
And the reason votes are counted at a caucus is because people don’t actually vote. The announce who they are supporting and then if there aren’t enough people that also support the same candidate, they are told that their candidate is not viable and they are told they have to choose someone else.