CNN Poll needs some DU Love: 80% think popular vote should count more then delegates???

http://www.cnn.com/

Bottom right of page.

People have no CLUE as to how this system works. I agree that our election system is fucked. However, the delegate count is the way the nominee is determined. Clinton is going to try to take the popular vote and muscle out a forced VP spot. That is my take. She is such a freak.

The delegate system IMHO is goofy.

I dont however think michigan or florida should be considered valid popular vote totals.

Since it is what we knew going in...

Obama will win both. He should lead on election reform once in office.

these are the rules going in we cant change them this cycle but I think there will be some changes coming.

However like I said I am not opposed to using the florida vote totals to wards the popular vote totals. I think they should be awarded half delegates. MI unfortunately either needs a do over or they just need to be ignored.


I think Obama was clearly at a disadvantage in FLA results because his fight the entire time has been one of name recognition. When people get to know who he is they vote for him or he at least substantially closes the gap. It has happened time and again theres no denying it. Having said that I could still accept FLA cause at least his name was on the ballot and there was at least national news coverage of him and a lot of it at the time was positive.

is never a good idea..
:rofl:

Primaries/caucuses are about delegates... General elections are about raw popular votes (although even THOSE totals only "select" a slate of "electors"..)

That doesnt have any bearing on the validity of pop vote totals however.

DELEGATES DO.. :rofl:

"Should count more THIS TIME"

"Should be reformed so it counts more"

There's more than one way to read the question.

......however, the system is set up for Delegates. Rules should be changed, after this cycle, to winner takes all and do away with the Delegates.... whoever gets the most votes overall - wins.

I think that is what the Obama camp was saying early on.

Has that changed now? Does it only apply if the "people decide" for Obama?

how are you counting the people in the states that had caucuses? Why does this Primary differ from every other frigging Democratic Primary? What 'matters' anymore?

the popular vote is meaningless

I always forget about those pesky caucuses.

sometimes i just cant help but hit that damn post button again.

Let the activists choose our nominee. Those who don't want to participate in such a process won't have a say. Stealth Republicans for Rush would be less likely to participate in a caucus. The one caveat is that voting locations need to be big enough to handle at least 50% of potential voters, which would be well above the highest participation ever in the primary cycle. This, along with trained volunteers and an organized system in place, would cut down on how long it takes to caucus. The caucuses should also allow the drop off of a ballot for those in a hurry, such as in Minnesota. Employers must allow for people to vote, and all caucuses should be held at a location with access for the handicapped. In the primary cycle, states could choose to not let us even have a say, so any type of vote is better than no vote at all, but I am a big proponent of the caucus system, obviously. Let's get people more involved at this level, perhaps more participation would lead to more interest in our gov't in non-election years, which would lead to more politically educated people and more accountability for the elected officials. Running in and checking a box and leaving is fine, but is much less likely to give a person an interest in deeper involvement. This is all just my personal opinion.

It ask whether they're talking about choosing between Obama and Clinton in this cycle, or should the system be changed to reflect these two options.

And, agreeing with the poll just gives credence to her argument...

It will be set up like this....

Hillary Clinton took the lead in the popular vote in West Virginia today, and according to a poll on CNN.com, voters believe the person with the popular vote should win. Let's turn now to her campaign supervisor as to why this is the chance she needs to take back the race....

Hillary spokesperson:

The people's votes need to count. We have already seen the party disenfranchise Michigan and Florida, now they want to disenfranchise the will of the entire country. The people have spoken, and it will be a crime if the nominee is not who the people voted for.......

Just watch.

because it doesn't state how popular vote is defined, and both campaigns will lay claim to it. Obama will state that caucus votes should count whereas Hillary will find some new metric to determine it.

"The Superdelegates should not take the will of the people into account"

were calling for the overturning of the electoral college.

Choosing a President and choosing a nominee for President are two different processes. One could have a different opinion about each process and not be inconsistent.

In a primary, the votes are proportioned by district to figure out how many pledged delegates you earn. That is why you can get more votes and end up with an equal or lesser number of pledged delegates than your opponent. The candidate who gets the required number of pledged delegates - 2025 - first is the nominee.

In the General Election, the candidate who gets the most votes in a state wins ALL the electoral college votes for that state. That is why the popular vote was so critical in Florida 2000.

get rid of the electoral college.

talk to the party leaders. in the meantime, don't whine that the process is somehow "unfair."

when there is a caucuses right?

If that is true why doesnt anyone talk about it?

Like,

"You cant use a popular vote because the the caucuses states wouldnt be counted."


seems like a simple argument

Pretty simple.

I guess Obama supporters plan to find a way to keep people from voting in the GE too, if they don't support Obama.

If we use popular vote that means Puerto Rico becomes more important to the race than the caucus states that did not record a popular vote. If we're going to use popular vote as the metric than we need to do away with caucuses.

for the next election we need to:

A.) Do away with caucuses
B.) Do away with superdelegates
C.) Do away with the electoral college for the GE

at least not until every single electro-fraud "voting" machine has been smashed with a sledgehammer.

I can guarandamntee you that the results in ANY caucus state were more accurate than the results of PA or Ohio. And that's NOT counting the Limbaugh vote.

But we'll continue with 2008 the way it was begun, thank you very much.

say DELEGATES are what counts when it comes to becoming the democratic nominee. If they want to change the rules in the future then go for it. However, for THIS primary it is the delegates that count.

"Which should be more important in choosing a party's nominee for president?"

In a theoretical race for the theoretical nomination of a theoretical party, I think there should be a national popular vote spread over two months, with one block of 12-13 states voting every two weeks. Every four years, the blocks would go in a different order. So I'd probably answer the poll by clicking "popular vote."

Of course, in the 2008 race for the Democratic party nomination, the candidates agreed at the beginning to campaign for delegates. To change the rules at this point would be silly.

Popular vote = President Gore.

I think I prefer the popular vote. And still Obama would be ahead.

been built into the Democratic nomination system via the super delegates. If they are not free to vote independent of the pledged delegate count there is absolutely no point to having them in the first place - that's how "this system works." Now if the super delegates want to consider the popular vote when making their choice they are not only completely within their right to do so they are making, in my opinion, a more informed decision.

Should the popular vote count more than delegates? Yes and no. From the standpoint of a super delegate to consider the pledged delegate count as the final word would completely nullify the super delegate's purpose - so in that sense any other relevant factor (including the popular vote) should be considered above the pledged delegate count. From the perspective of the entire nomination process the total delegate count including supers and pledged must decide the winner simply because that is the established system.

The better polling question would be - In the event that two presidential candidates are close enough in pledged delegates to give the super delegates the power to decide the nomination, should the overall popular vote metric be the most important factor that the super delegates consider in making their decision?