Friday, May 23, 2008

Count every vote!

In Michigan, John Edwards supporters arranged it so Barack Obama could take his name off the ballot. This was an advantage to Edwards because he was also allowed to take his name off the ballot in a primary where he would have finished last, or near enough to it to make no nevermind. Edwards supporters wanted to force a caucus. Screw the voters.

Florida didn't make the mistake of letting their renegade primary be totally compromised by party hacks and union influence. Then again, the Florida Party Chair wasn't in the tank for John Edwards and the Union bosses who liked his populism:

Mich. Democrats officially approve Jan. 15 primary
The Democrat-controlled House on Monday night passed the bill to put all eight Democrats on the ballot, but failed to come up with the two-thirds vote needed for it to take effect before the election.

Democratic National Committeewoman Debbie Dingell — who along with Gov. Jennifer Granholm backs Clinton — blamed the Edwards campaign for derailing the vote.

"It's very clear that the Edwards people have been at the forefront of trying to keep the primary from happening in Michigan," Dingell said Tuesday. "They felt they would have had a better chance at a caucus" because union members who like Edwards would make up a disproportionate share of Democratic caucus voters.

Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis blamed both the Edwards campaign and Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer for keeping the names off the ballot.

Both have "been working for months to scuttle Michigan's presidential primary, working in open opposition to Governor Granholm and the large majority Michigan Democrats who joined Republicans in supporting a Jan. 15 primary," Anuzis said in a release. "The only thing the Democrats have done is chosen to score political points by disenfranchising their own voters."
In the long-ago of March 2008, many Obama backers were arguing Barack deserved the Democrat presidential nomination because he led in the popular vote. At the time, TOC advised these people to Be careful what you wish for.

TOC speculated that if Hillary got within 200,000 votes, especially given that Obama got 429,000 of his then 717,000 margin solely from Cook County Illinois, that the electoral college calculus might not be on his side.

Looks like we may have underestimated Hillary's popular vote:

In most inclusive count, Clinton has the numbers
By Jonathan Last
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Lost in the excitement of Barack Obama's coronation this week was an inconvenient fact of Tuesday's results: Hillary Clinton netted approximately 150,000 votes and is now poised to finish the primary season as the popular-vote leader. In some quaint circles, presumably, these things still matter.

Real Clear Politics keeps track of six versions of the popular-vote total. They are, in ascending order of inclusivity: (1) the popular vote of sanctioned contests; (2) the total of sanctioned contests, plus estimated votes from the Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington caucuses; (3) the popular vote plus Florida; (4) popular vote plus Florida and the caucuses; (5) the popular vote plus Florida and Michigan; (6) popular vote plus Florida, Michigan, and the caucus estimates. After Tuesday, Clinton now leads in two of these six counts.

If you believe that the most important precept in democratic politics is to "count every vote," then the sixth category is the most inclusive, and here Clinton leads Obama by 71,301 votes. Of course, this includes the Michigan result, where Sen. Obama had removed his name from the ballot. So while it may be the most inclusive, it may not be the most fair.

The third and fourth counts - the ones which include Florida - seem more fair. Here, Obama is clinging to a slight lead of 146,786 votes (257,008, with the caucus estimates). However, with Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota remaining, he will almost certainly finish behind her in these counts, likely by a few hundred thousand votes.

But could Clinton take over the lead in all of the popular-vote tabulations? Quite possibly. In Puerto Rico's last major election, two million people voted. Let's assume that turnout for this historic vote - Puerto Rico has never had a presidential primary before - will be equal to or greater than that turnout. ...
This is fun.

1 comment:

live dangerously said...

Nice digging and heads up analysis. The irony of it is sure thick. This upcoming election will be something to tell your kids or grandkids about.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative.