The Utter Fallacy of the Popular Vote Argument
While a vigorous debate could be held over the merits of choosing delegates by means of a primary election vs. a caucus (and there are clearly some very valid arguments for each), this is nonetheless an irrelevant issue at present. The entire DNC, including members of Clinton’s team, helped to craft the present system and agreed to abide by it many months ago. Yet, we continue to hear Senator Clinton argue that the “popular” vote is what ultimately matters most.
To illustrate the utter fallacy of this argument, consider Oklahoma and its slightly larger neighbor, Colorado. Oklahoma has 2.2 million registered voters, 61% Democratic or Independent, Colorado has 2.9 million registered voters, 65% Democratic or Independent.
In Oklahoma’s primary, Clinton gained a net lead of 10 delegates and 98,350 votes over Obama by virtue of a 23.6% victory.
In Colorado’s caucus, Obama gained a net lead of 15 delegates and 41,274 votes over Clinton by virtue of a 34.2% victory.
Even though Obama's margin of victory was 45% larger than Clinton's, her popular vote total was 238% higher (314% if we adjust for voter registration). Note however, that the delegate totals scale correctly with respect to the winning percentages, i.e. he received about 45% more delegates.
The point is painfully obvious if you recall anything whatsoever from high school algebra. Two oranges plus five apples doesn’t equal seven of either. The delegate count is the only meaningful measure, as it is a normalized representation of the voter intent in states with different polling procedures. Of the 17 caucuses held, Senator Clinton has only won the delegate count (by 1) in American Samoa. Four of the caucus states don't even report popular vote counts, and in the caucuses of Washington and Minnesota, states much larger than Colorado and Oklahoma, Obama comfortably won by more than a 2-1 margin. Therefore, simply counting the raw "popular" vote significantly under represents the actual number of voters supporting Senator Obama.
Of course there will be opponents who disagree, since a caucus turnout is generally smaller than a primary. Here again, mathematics tells the true story. Professional statisticians routinely conduct national polls encompassing roughly a thousand individuals, and do so with error margins of plus or minus a few percent. The total vote in Colorado’s caucus was more than one hundred times this amount (118,952), making the probability of selecting the incorrect winner less than the likelihood of being struck by lightning.
James McBride, Ph.D.
1647 Windy Ridge Court
Saline, MI 48176
734-944-3102
Comments are closed for this post.
