Delegats won in New Hampshire 2008 (demokrats)
Hillary: 9 pledged + 2 superdel = 11 (39% of votes)
Obama: 9 pledged + 3 superdel = 12 (37% of votes)
How could she win when she infact won less delegats than Obama, and how could Obama win more delegats when Hillary got more votes ? 
Could someone explaine this in simple english ?
Because it isn’t simple.
In addition to the elected delegates (via primary), there are also delegates (the “superdel”) who go to the convention based upon their political office or by appointment. For instance, the senators for a state may choose one delegate (it varies from state to state). Thus, the two candidates got about the same number of elected delegates (since they were close in the ballots, this is expected).
Superdelegates can announce who they support at any time. In this case, three have said they would vote for Obama and two said they would vote for Hillary. I believe the superdelegates are allowed to change their mind, but there are restrictions on the elected delegates (they are required to support their pledged candidate on the first convention ballot).
Actually, all democratic US Senators and Representatives are superdelegates, along with a number of DNC officials, and various democratic state government officeholders. There are 790-something of them, making up about 1/5 of all delegates at the convention.
It ought to be. I think the media makes things confusing by focusing on the percentage of popular vote each candidate receives. That’s not the most meaningful metric, either in the primaries or the general election. What’s important now is delegates won. For all the talk of Romney having “lost” in both Iowa and New Hampshire, he’s got a healthy lead in the delegate count (Romney 30, Huckabee 21, McCain 10, etc.)
But as **RealityChuck **points out, CNN et al muddle the picture even more by ignoring the superdelegates and pledged delegates, The page that the OP links to shows Obama with a slight lead over Clinton at this point… 25-24. But if you include the superdelegates and pledged delegates, then you see that Clinton really has a huge lead over Obama, 183-78
I don’t have a horse in the race, not supporting any candidate yet, but I just think the media coverage is perplexing. I heard one national pundit speculating that Romney’s failure to win in NH might knock him out of the race, and another saying that Clinton might drop out after her less than overwhelming showing in the first two primaries. Both notions are just crazy.
Deja vu. We haven’t have a thread on this in GQ since, well, yesterday. And I haven’t answered this question since two days ago.
The reason nobody pays attention to the superdelegates is that their pledges are conditional. They can change them at any time. Indeed, they *will * change them to the front runner before the convention to ensure that the convention is a coronation rather than a fight.
All that matters are the delegates won in the primaries. It’s been a lifetime since the winner wasn’t known coming into the convention. I don’t believe the superdelegates have ever been a deciding factor at any convention since they were invented. The whole notion is nothing more than a sop to ego-driven elected politicians to enable them to attend the convention as a delegate instead of as peasants like you and me. Of course, if I were in their shoes I’d demand the same so I shouldn’t be sarcastic.
and what does this mean ?
Democratic Scorecard
Hillary: 183
Obama: 78
Edwards: 52
Richardson: 19
It says right there: Total Delegates - This number includes pledged delegates and superdelegates *
This whole thing is crazy. Needlessly complicated.
So I guess in the actual election we well have 3 candidates to choose from, a Republican, a Democrat, and an Independent? I’m writing in Ron Paul.
It really isn’t that complicated. There are two major parties. They go through a big rigamarole to select a candidate. Then there’s the general election.
Have you voted in a presidential election before? There will be like a dozen independent and minor party candidates, depending on what state you’re in.
Yes I have, twice. But I don’t remember there being many candidates to vote for. Memory is fuzzy.
So what exactly is wrong with popular vote?
Are we talking about the general election or the primaries? In the general election, the Electoral College is mandated by the Constitution, and the Constitution set it up that way as a compromise, so less populous states would have a little more power in selecting the executive to make up for their lack of power in the legislative branch. Remember also that there were no popular votes originally; each state’s Electors were chosen by that state’s government, and popular elections were not common until the late 19th century.
As for the primaries, there’s no reason a political party has to use the delegate system. Remember that these things evolved from what was once a purely internal party affair – parties would hold conventions and nominate their candidates, without any particular input from the public. Primaries were implemented piecemeal by state party organizations to give the public a say in choosing their delegates to those conventions. If a national party organization wanted to, they could just say “we’ll nominate whoever wins the popular vote in the primary.” But they don’t have any particular motivation to do so.