What is the Will of the People?
The Clinton camp and its supporters have spent a lot of time talking about the nationwide popular vote total, which by the counts I've seen, shows Obama in the lead by a 49% to 47% margin. The reason they've been focusing on this metric, as opposed to the delegate count, is because Hillary still has some hope of drawing even in the popular vote tally. The hope among the Clinton camp is that if Hillary finishes strong and takes a narrow lead in the popular vote total, they'll be able to use that fact to persuade enough super-delegates to join her side to make up her deficit among pledged delegates and give her the nomination.
In other words, they know that undecided super-delegates will be loathe to overturn what they perceive to be the "will of the people," so they are desperate to convince everyone who will listen that the will of the people is better measured by the popular vote count than by the pledged delegate count, the latter of which Clinton has very little hope of winning.
Among Clinton backers, it is taken as almost gospel truth that the will of the people is better measured by the popular vote tally. But is that really the case?
Under the current system, each state is free to determine what kind of process it will use to select its delegates. Some states have opted for primaries, others caucuses, and still others use some combination of the two. This is significant because it is much easier and less time consuming to participate in a primary than in a caucus, and therefore vote totals tend to be substantially higher in primary states than in caucus states.
For this reason, many people (myself included) feel that primaries are a more democratic and ultimately fairer way of selecting delegates. That said, the fact remains that a large number of states still hold caucuses, not primaries. And because of that, using the nationwide total vote count as a proxy for popular support is problematic. It combines apples and oranges. Using that metric gives disproportionate significance to states that hold primaries (because they have much higher voter turnout). Conversely, states with caucuses (which inevitably have much lower voter turnout) end up having much less significance than they should given the size of their respective populations.
In other words, if you look at the popular vote totals in this election, what you're really measuring is the "will of the people" in states that happen to have held primaries, not the country as a whole. Clinton backers would counter by pointing out that Obama has won many caucus states by margins that would likely have been smaller if those same states had held primaries. I think that's undoubtedly true, but that doesn't make it any less problematic to marginalize the significance of caucus states.
Consider that turnout in primaries is, on average, about five times higher than in caucuses. What that means is that you're likely get more net votes from a narrow primary win than you are from a blowout caucus win in the same state. Assume, for instance, that 100,000 people participate in a caucus in State X and the vote breaks down 70/30 for Obama. That's a net vote gain of 40,000 votes for Obama. But if that same state held a primary, Obama would only need to win by a 54/46 margin to receive the same net gain in votes.
So while it is undoubtedly true that Obama's margin of victory (percentage-wise) in the caucus states would have been smaller had those states held primaries, he would likely have gained more net votes than he did from the caucuses. The popular vote total, therefore, very likely understates Obama's actual support in the states that have held contests so far.
I sympathize with those who argue that the pledged delegate count is an imperfect indicator of the will of the people. That's undoubtedly true. But I think that the national vote count that the Clinton campaign is focusing on is every bit as imperfect. It combines apples and oranges and, in doing so, penalizes states who have chosen to hold caucuses instead of primaries. Moreover, as imperfect an indicator as the delegate count is, there's something to be said for observing the rules of the contest. Each state was allotted delegates in proportion to its population size and was told that it could choose the means for deciding how those delegates are awarded. States aren't even required to report vote totals (and several haven't; which makes the national vote total even more problematic).
Under the rules of the game, therefore, the final delegate apportionment for each state is presumed to be the will of that state's people. That may not always be the case, but to the extent it isn't, it is the state's own fault, and it seems more than a little presumptuous and problematic for the media and superdelegates to take it upon themselves to invent some other metric for determining what the will of the people in those states really is, particularly when that new metric is itself of dubious accuracy.
In other words, they know that undecided super-delegates will be loathe to overturn what they perceive to be the "will of the people," so they are desperate to convince everyone who will listen that the will of the people is better measured by the popular vote count than by the pledged delegate count, the latter of which Clinton has very little hope of winning.
Among Clinton backers, it is taken as almost gospel truth that the will of the people is better measured by the popular vote tally. But is that really the case?
Under the current system, each state is free to determine what kind of process it will use to select its delegates. Some states have opted for primaries, others caucuses, and still others use some combination of the two. This is significant because it is much easier and less time consuming to participate in a primary than in a caucus, and therefore vote totals tend to be substantially higher in primary states than in caucus states.
For this reason, many people (myself included) feel that primaries are a more democratic and ultimately fairer way of selecting delegates. That said, the fact remains that a large number of states still hold caucuses, not primaries. And because of that, using the nationwide total vote count as a proxy for popular support is problematic. It combines apples and oranges. Using that metric gives disproportionate significance to states that hold primaries (because they have much higher voter turnout). Conversely, states with caucuses (which inevitably have much lower voter turnout) end up having much less significance than they should given the size of their respective populations.
In other words, if you look at the popular vote totals in this election, what you're really measuring is the "will of the people" in states that happen to have held primaries, not the country as a whole. Clinton backers would counter by pointing out that Obama has won many caucus states by margins that would likely have been smaller if those same states had held primaries. I think that's undoubtedly true, but that doesn't make it any less problematic to marginalize the significance of caucus states.
Consider that turnout in primaries is, on average, about five times higher than in caucuses. What that means is that you're likely get more net votes from a narrow primary win than you are from a blowout caucus win in the same state. Assume, for instance, that 100,000 people participate in a caucus in State X and the vote breaks down 70/30 for Obama. That's a net vote gain of 40,000 votes for Obama. But if that same state held a primary, Obama would only need to win by a 54/46 margin to receive the same net gain in votes.
So while it is undoubtedly true that Obama's margin of victory (percentage-wise) in the caucus states would have been smaller had those states held primaries, he would likely have gained more net votes than he did from the caucuses. The popular vote total, therefore, very likely understates Obama's actual support in the states that have held contests so far.
I sympathize with those who argue that the pledged delegate count is an imperfect indicator of the will of the people. That's undoubtedly true. But I think that the national vote count that the Clinton campaign is focusing on is every bit as imperfect. It combines apples and oranges and, in doing so, penalizes states who have chosen to hold caucuses instead of primaries. Moreover, as imperfect an indicator as the delegate count is, there's something to be said for observing the rules of the contest. Each state was allotted delegates in proportion to its population size and was told that it could choose the means for deciding how those delegates are awarded. States aren't even required to report vote totals (and several haven't; which makes the national vote total even more problematic).
Under the rules of the game, therefore, the final delegate apportionment for each state is presumed to be the will of that state's people. That may not always be the case, but to the extent it isn't, it is the state's own fault, and it seems more than a little presumptuous and problematic for the media and superdelegates to take it upon themselves to invent some other metric for determining what the will of the people in those states really is, particularly when that new metric is itself of dubious accuracy.
posted by A.L. at 1:46 PM
15 Comments:
Caucuses are intrinsically unfair & unrepresentative. They disadvantage shift-workers, the time-poor, the elderly and other key sections of the Democratic base. As such delgate numbers from states that are caucus-only are themselves necessarily unfair & unrepresentative. Saying it's "the state's own fault." or that it's "presumptuous & problematic for the media & superdelegates to take it upon themselves to invent some other metric for determining the will of the people" is just plain disingenuous. Neither candidate will probably be able to gain sufficient pledged delegates for success. Therefore, the deciding votes will be those of the super-delegates. The superdelegates are famously un-bound by any particular "rules of the game" and are free to decide by whichever metric they choose: pledged delegate count, national popular vote, key state margins, perceived "electability" etc.
Both campaigns are lobbying superdelegates with a metric-of-choice (not compulsion) that favours their candidate. I happen to believe that the national popular vote is a perfectly fair metric for that decision. I also believe that Obama will win by that metric as well. To argue that the national popular vote total is somehow an invented, illegitimate or "other" metric for superdelegates to use, is frankly specious.
A.L., don't let your admirable advocacy of Senator Obama lead you into illogic.
It's a delegate race and always has been. Attempts to change the rules will only lead to disaster.
DonJoaquinoz,
The groups you mention who are disadvantaged by caucus systems are also disadvantaged by voting itself, made only somewhat less so by absentee ballots and other methods. And shall we get together and discuss the fairness of the electoral college in selecting a President?
There is no method of voting which is intrinsically fair. The passion of a smaller group can overcome the mild preference of a larger group, for example. There have been mathematical analyses of voting methods, and the results are discouraging, to say the least.
In a nomination race, where the purpose is to come up with the candidate most likely to win the general election, there is no mathematically justifiable argument for one person, one vote.
The least unfair system in choosing a candidate that we can manage on a large scale is one where all parties (not individuals) are given equal access to opportunity in the counting, and this is equally true in caucus states as in primary states.
I live in a caucus state, and my vote (which would have been for Obama) was, like millions of others, not counted, and now you (and the Clinton camp) want to disenfranchise me? Please note that, like a very large number of others, I was not even able to park to get into the caucus -- the cars were backed up for a mile, and many (nobody knows how many) eventually gave up like me.
Speaking mathematically, I would only accept the "popular vote" methodology if the individual state proportions, as determined by caucus results (which represent the best measure available) and primary results were then multiplied by the expected number of voters in the general election. Want to try the math? If you do, don't forget to weight the small states greater because of the electoral college effect.
Myself, I want to eliminate the primaries entirely and use instant run-off voting in the general. Who's with me?
By every measure of the popular vote Obama leads Clinton. That's true even if you include the results from Florida and Michigan and exclude the estimated results from IA, NV, ME & WA (which haven't been officially reported and which favor Obama). Take a look at some of the numbers here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
So, even if you buy Clinton's argument about the "will of the people," it's not in her favor, and seems unlikely to swing that way.
You haven't even mentioned the problem of "strategic" voting in open primaries, where Republicans vote for the Democratic they believe to be the weakest candidate. These votes are equal to those of sincere voters in the popular vote tallies. From all indications, they have usually been for Hillary.
It is fantasy to imagine that there is some precise calculation that can be made of the “will of the people.” In a close election, the outcome can be altered by numerous variables ranging from the weather to the last issue/scandal that has hit the media (not to mention confusing ballots, confused voters, errors in tabulation or outright fraud). This should be particularly obvious when we are talking about a primary, where the voting takes place at different times and under different rules as to how the voting occurs (primary/caucus) and who is eligible (open/closed).
Of course, this won’t stop politicians from complaining about unfairness in the voting process, “disenfranchisement”, etc, all amounting to the same thing—special pleading in favor of themselves. In the guise of improving fairness and discerning the “will of the people,” they are actually undermining the moral legitimacy of the electoral process—which is designed to be an objective check on their ability to do whatever they please. The more politicians are allowed to manipulate the process to ensure a result that reflects the “will of the people,” the less check there will be on their power. After all, in communist countries the government rules in the name of the “will of the people” and structures elections to guarantee results consistent with that will.
All of these metrics are imperfect. Each tells part of the story, but none of them are definitive. The campaigns are each pushing the metric(s) that favor their candidate. The "pledged delegate" metric favors Obama. The "number of states" metric (which I personally find the least convincing) also favors Obama. The "popular vote" metric currently favors Obama but by a small enough margin that it could favor Clinton in the end. The "big state" metric favors Clinton (so far). The "electability" metric favors both equally according to the latest head-to-head polls versus McCain.
Since Obama is unlikely to lose his lead in the pledged delegate metric, his campaign is spinning that metric as "the will of the people". Since Clinton is unlikely to catch up in pledged delegates, her campaign is spinning other metrics. In the end, it's up to the superdelegates to look past what the campaigns are trying to spin based on these metrics and decide based on a combination of these factors (and others) or (gasp!) based on who they personally think would make the best President. That's what the superdelegates are designed to do. They were obviously not designed to rubber stamp any particular metric, or they wouldn't exist in the form that they do.
I'm not saying that these metrics are completely unimportant. (In fact, the pledged delegate metric is very important--but only if you can win 2025 pledged delegates or to reduce the number of supers you need to get to 2025.) This year, they are only important as a way to influence superdelegates. The more metrics that you have on your side, the more persuasive you can be. Since Obama currently leads in more metrics, my guess is that he will be the eventual nominee, but to cut off the process now just because one candidate has a commanding lead in a particular metric would be very unwise. It risks permanently alienating the other half of the party. The remaining superdelegates should hold off until the end of the primaries to get the maximum information before making this important decision.
The problem with this election is that it is so close that "the will of the people" is inconclusive. Given the many problems with the process and the small margins, it may remain inconclusive even after June 3. The revote in Michigan may help clarify things, and the lack of a revote in Florida certainly makes things worse for everyone by further clouding the picture for the superdelegates.
This is a mess for sure, but the superdelegates will decide one way or the other--that's their job now. And it's likely to be their last before they are eliminated for 2012. Wish them luck! Then get behind whomever they choose so we can defeat McCain and put a Democrat in the White House!
The whole point to me is, the states have established rules for determining representation to the convention. Clinton is trying to end-run the rules. Question: Do we want yet another president who doesn't follow the rules, who bends the rules to their personal advantage? I think not.
Democratic Incompetence in Florida and Michigan.
I agree that there is no single voting scheme, or primary
scheme, that simultaneously optimizes all possible benefits
of a democracy. Each has its benefits and flaws. But one
thing that is unfair and undemocratic is to change schemes
in the middle of an election. Bad as caucuses might be, and
good as popular vote might be, the time to argue about these
pros and cons is before the election takes place. For
example, that Gore won the national popular vote in 2000
wasn’t even a point of discussion for who should have been
declared the winner, and rightly so. The issue was then,
properly, only the proper execution of the process that was
set up. Similarly now with the Democratic primaries.
That said, I personally am offended at the incompetence of
the Democratic party that, by the party’s management, the
people of Michigan and Florida are not counted in the
primary. Whether the blame is with the state Democratic
parties, the national Democratic party or the candidates
themselves doesn’t matter. Overall, the democrats show deep
incompetence at running a democracy when they simply shut
out the votes of so many millions of people.
Shame on Barack, Hilary, the National Democratic Party and
the State Democratic parties for not all setting up a full
primary in each state. Its not that each should demand that
the other pay, all groups should independently be offering
to pay all.
And as for Hilary and Barack, they shouldn’t even spend a
minute thinking about the consequences for them in the
delegate count. And any sign that they are having such
thoughts puts them in the same manipulative position as the
various proponents of this or that disingenuous principle
during the Florida recount.
Were I an independent looking on I would feel wary of voting
to put our country’s democracy in the hands of a group, the
Democratic party, that can’t run a fair election.
Rediculuous.
-Andy
Houston Chronicle:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/5599976.html
Cleveland Plain Dealer:
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/120505162549970.xml&coll=2
now the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/
"For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.
A sudden change of heart? Hardly."
This is just since it's been NOTICED by the press. Who knows how many Hillary votes were actually Repubs flip-flopping?
I glad to hear that 199,000 votes from Republican voters in Texas proved that Hillary is their candidate of choice considering that Obama tallied around 135,000 Republican votes here. As to it being obvious that Obama would have had more votes if the caucus had been primaries is conjecture since Hillary won the primary votes in Texas but lost the caucus. I suppose had there not been a primary in Texas, but only a caucus, people would be talking how Obama would have had 400,000 more popular votes in Texas had you simply extrapolated the caucus results even if you assumed that the vote total would have been closer than his 53/47 caucus numbers.
Sorry, that should have stated above that Hillary's Republican vote total of 109,000, not 199,000.
I think you may have missed the point, that being Rush Limbaugh instructing his minions to register as Democrats for the day of the primary and vote for Hillary because the whole Repub attack apparatus is set-up to attack Hillary, not Obama.
The amusing thing is that if Clinton was ahead, all the Obots would be arguing the exact opposite. The fact, is pledged delegates don't matter until you get to the magic number needed to nominate, and neither candidate will reach that. There have been cases in the past where the eventual nominee was not even actively running. Also, Texas makes you all look foolish by having more votes for Clinton and Obama winning the caucuses. As far as republicans votes, you didn't mention them when Obama was getting the R vote in Maryland. I am so disgusted with hypocricy.
i dont have any idia
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home