You’ve got to be kidding. Prior to Obama racking up that series of wins, the common wisdom was that the caucus process disproportionately FAVORED older voters. Older voters have a lot more time on their hands than younger people do (as they are more likely to be retired from the workforce), and are therefore far more likely to be be able to participate in a process that can take several hours. Older people are also far more likely to be regular, enthusiastic voters - and it’s disproportionately that class of voters who are likely to go to a caucus. More casual voters can’t be bothered.
Obama won all those caucuses because (unlike Clinton), he actually campaigned hard in those states. Clinton ignored them. Now she’s paying the price for choosing a “50% +1” strategy.
The caucus I went to was not noisy during the voting and was only mildly noisy during the resolutions – no more than low conversation otherwise. Of course, this may not have been the case in Austin proper.
And I don’t get what you’re saying about populated centers being weighted more heavily for delegate allocation. You’re saying that areas with more people get more delegates? Wouldn’t that BE one man, one vote? As opposed to a thousand people in Waller having exactly the same combined voice as twenty thousand in Austin’s West Campus area?
That basicly would settle the unfairness issue for me. And the fact that i learned all you have to do is get there, spend a couple of minutes to vote , and go home.
When I’m talking about old people, I’m really talking about those who are 70 plus.
Several days ago, I think it was on CNN, it was reported that Roman Catholic democrats were voting for Clinton over Obama 70 to 30. The reason appears to be that the Catholic population is withering to a core of very old women and I could see that these much older Catholic women they interviewed were in no condition to handle what I understood as an evening of active participation .
I know what you’re saying, and I understand that. It just makes sense. But I understood from CNN that there was more weight given for population centres in Texas than simple proportion of population. If anyone can shed some light on that it would be appreciated
‘Fairness’ doesn’t enter into it. This is a political party choosing their own candidate. They can use whatever means they want. Hell, if they want to start throwing chicken entrails or reading tea leaves to choose a candidate, they can do that.
Your choice is to leave the party if you don’t think it represents your interests.
Districts that provided more Democratic votes in the last few elections get more delegates. So it’s not so much one man - one vote, as one Democratic voter - one vote. That’s similar to the way delegates are assigned in most states where delegates are assigned in districts. In general, this seems fair – districts that provide a lot of Democratic votes provide a lot of delegates.
The thing that makes this so interesting in this case is that both Hispanic and African-American districts are heavily Democratic, but because Hispanics don’t tend to vote as much there are not as many Democratic voters in their districts historically as in the African-American districts. This means the Hispanic districts don’t send as many delegates to the convention. In this particular election that tends to be bad for Clinton and good for Obama.
Oh sure, you can do that to. Lobby within the party to have the system changed. But when the party members settle on a system they like for choosing the candidate they are going to pay to support, it is by definition ‘fair’, even if they choose people by throwing darts at a phone book.
If delegates are determined by the number of Democratic voters in that precinct, do they count from the last election or from this one?
We had fourteen delegates in our precinct. If we’d had fewer people caucus or hang about, we might not have had fourteen actual people to be delegates. Before now, few people knew about democratic caucuses, so I can well imagine there have been times where an entire precinct sent maybe half of its actual allotted delegates to the conference…
The electoral college is weighted that way too. Gore won the popular vote but Bush won more delegates. The US is not a direct democracy. It’s a democratic republic. Even when you vote for a president, you aren’t really voting for the president but for delegates who are pledged to vote for specific candidates in the elctoral college.
Having said all that, a primary process is not an election. It doesn’t have to be fair. It doesn’t have to be democratic. It’s a private party deciding who it wants to back financially as its candidate. The nominee is not being handed any official office, just resources and backing to run for an office. The party is allowed to use any means it feels like to decide its nominee. They don’t have to hold any primary system at all. They could just have the party leaders decide by fiat if they wanted to. That would alienate a lot of the rank and file members, but if they don’t like it, they are free to leave the party.
Yep. Note that overall, Hillary has more popular votes than Obama has. Obama is only ahead ue to the odd way delegates are apportioned (Caucuses, small states getting more delegates than their population would normally account for, etc), not due to his popular support with “the people”.
Sure, Obama needs less SuperDelegates to win. But even CNN did the math- neither Candidate, neither Clinton OR Obama can win outright without SuperDelegates now. In other words, if Hillary can only win by “cheating” then that’s the only way Obama can win too. NEITHER CANDIDATE CAN WIN NOW WITHOUT SUPERDELEGATES.
The Obama-ites whining about SuperDelegates need to realize they are being hypocritical. Either it’s “the system” (which system includes the Convention as a whole voting to seat Fla, etc) which so far has benefited Obama (he has done evey well in small states and in caucuses) or its “the will of the people” in which case, hand the election to Hillary. You can’t be for “the system” when you benefit- then for “the will of the people” when that is better for your candidate. Not without being giant hypocrites, anyway.
I don’t think this is true: see here . She is only ahead if you include MI, where he wasn’t on the ballot.
I don’t think it is in anyway hypocritical to claim that the superdelegates should respect the voice of the people and align with the candidate with either the greatest popular vote total or pledged delegates.
Also, not that the popular vote totals above do not include caucus states, where Obama was particularly strong (and likely would have won majorities in a primary as well).
It’s not by precinct, it’s by district. In Texas, they do it by state senate district. Every state is different of course, some states do it by congressional district.
I’m not sure of the exact details of how the delegates are allocated, but I seem to remember reading that in Texas it was based on the average number of Democratic votes in the previous two statewide general elections. That is, the ones for Texas governor and the 2004 presidential.
Although there is an argument that the Delegates from the two disputed states shouldn’t get their votes, it’s manifestly hypocritical and unfair to argue that the people of those two states shouldn’t have their voices heard at all. Counting all votes, HRC is ahead in the popular vote, like it or not. n actual fact, the race is a dead heat, given the small disparity. Neither can say they are clearly ahead in the popular vote, it’s that close.
Obama is ahead so far in delegates due to wining caucuses (not the popular vote) and doing better in small states,which get more delegates than their population should allocate.
Obama is playing the numbers game just like Hillary.
But aren’t you asking that a tiny population (in this case Roman Catholic old ladies) be given special treatment to ensure their votes are “more fair” than any other group?
And frankly, if old people don’t want to participate anymore, then it’s not the party’s fault as a whole and maybe their voice shouldn’t be heard.
Because that’s how it feels as a young person in this system. I get a pat on the head and an “isn’t that cute” when I have an opinion from someone who’s 40-50 and think they’ll own the system forever. Just because I’m 26 and have only been involved in the “adult world” for a few years, my opinion on anything doesn’t count to these people.
The point of having delegates and electorates instead of going with a strictly popular vote is so that small states (like New Mexico, for example) still get a voice. It’s the same reason we have a Senate… so smaller states can still have an equal footing to larger states. But you already knew that, right?
Are you sure that Clinton is ahead once all votes are counted? There may be other votes cast by Canadians, or written on napkins by children. Of course, those votes don’t count, but if you’re going to count votes that don’t count you should count all votes that don’t count.
Being a bit more serious, what’s happened in Michigan and FL is a problem. It certainly feels wrong that people are not being allowed their say based on some nonsense within the party. However, if you’re interested in getting a true count of the number of supporters of the candidates, then including a count of 328,000 to 0 for Hillary in Michigan is really a mistake. Obama supporters there, again through no fault of their own, were not able to cast votes for him. I don’t know how many such supporters there are, but I imagine there are many more than the 35,000 lead that Hillary has when the FL and M votes are included.
In order to preserve the white, Republican majority in Texas, the Lone Star State endured probably the most egregious gerrymandering of recent history. The state legislature created many small, white-majority districts and a handful of extremely large, dense black ones. Since one representative is elected from each district, this allowed the Republican party to maintain a majority in both the state and national legislature since the blacks vote overwhelmingly democratic while the whites do the opposite.
But in a primary, delegates are assigned proportionally. Imagine 25 districts with 6 delegates apiece, and 5 districts with 30 delegates apiece.
Suppose HRC wins 55%-45% in all 25 of the smaller white districts, but given the margin, the delegates are split 3 apiece. Each candidate walks away with 75 delegates, even though HRC beats Obama by a comfortable margin everywhere.
Suppose Obama dominates the larger districts by, say, 70%-30%. He receives a greater share of a larger delegate pie per district. He walks off with 105 delegates, while HRC takes only 45.
Even if Hillary wins a slightly larger total share of the popular vote in Texas, she still walks away with only 120 total delegates next to 180 for Obama. In case it was not sufficiently clear, these numbers are purely illustrative.
Because the districts do not represent even slices of the population of Texas, you can end up with outcomes that are not intuitive.
Sure. But the Obama-ites can have it one way or the other. *Either *it’s the “will of the people” or it’s “the system”. Whining that Hillary is “cheating” when she tries to take advantage of the system (by winning a floor vote to seat the Fla delegates), or threatening “to take their ball and go home crying” if the SuperDelegate vote goes against them is immature and hypocritical.
