Sunday, May 4, 2008

One Person, One Vote Concept Destroyed by the Caucus State Votes.

One Person, One Vote Concept Destroyed by the Caucus State Votes.
Obama gained a questionable advantage in the democratic electoral process when his caucus state wins far exceeded the realistic margin of victory he would have gained if there had been an actual state primary vote instead of a caucus vote. The caucus state results have netted Barrack Obama an out of whack delegate gain of 169 delegates when compared to the number of people that actually voted. The caucus state wins for Barrack Obama were so out of the realistic margin of victory that if Hillary Clinton were awarded 4 MORE State of California primary victories by the same margin she won the first California Primary, Hillary Clinton would still net less delegates than Barrack Obama did from the caucus state votes.

Lets break down that last statistic to truly understand its meaning. Hillary Clinton won in a convincing manner in California yet 4 Californias and the 16 million and 785,548 votes they represent, including a winning margin for Hillary Clinton of 1 million and 665,340 votes, WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH to overtake Barrack Obama's inflated margin of victory in all the caucus states that involved a vote of only 1.1 million total voters and only 400,000 more votes for Obama. It appears it would take 9 Californias and 33 million votes with a 3.3 million vote advantage for Hillary Clinton to undo the advantage the caucus states inaccurately contributed to the 2008 democratic presidential race.

Do you see why the moment that Barrack Obama had overwhelmingly won undervote caucus states that his camp began bellowing that Hillary could not catch them no matter what! If the Caucus state margins of victory that Barrack Obama won by had actually represented the accurate winning percentage of that states voters, then there is no controversy. Yet look what happened in the State of Washington. Obama won the caucus vote by a 68-31% vote, but then in the non-binding primary vote held 10 days later, Barrack Obama barely won 50% to 49.6%. The danger of caucus vote states is that the much smaller voting sample WILL NOT actually represent the true will of that states populace. Does Barack Obama's "change" involve not accurately representing the true popular vote of each state in the country?

By setting up a caucus system in which one vote actually represents the will of 10 voters, the one person, one vote system has been throw off the rails and Barrack Obama has used this bias to create even more momentum and tumult among the democratic party. It was not until Barrack Obama suggested that Hillary was staying in the race and hurting the democratic party that Hillary's overall popularity dipped in the polls.

Just prior to the Pennsylvania primary, Barrack Obama had 57% of all delegates, but only 51% of the popular vote, further proof how the caucus states have influenced the 2008 Presidential election far beyond the number of people who actually voted.

8 comments:

Suzanne Forster said...

Excellent blog! The democratic party refuses to see that the caucus system is unfair and not representative. Thanks for everything you're doing to bring this to their attention.

I read recently that one delegate equals 13,000 votes!

Tim said...

I understand the frustration, but I would suggest you focus on changing the rules for the next election instead of changing the rules mid-election. Hillary and Barack both knew the rules (including Florida and Michigan) heading into the campaigns, and they strategized accordingly. Part of a campaign is demonstrating your understanding of the game and how to succeed in that game. If you can succeed in a campaign, then that says a lot about how you might be able to succeed as a president.

Hillary has run a strong campaign, but not strong enough. She knew the rules and knew how the caucus votes would be tallied - if she didn't campaign accordingly, that says a lot about her judgment, right?

Alessandro Machi said...

Hi Suzanne, in the primaries, it one one delegate per 13,000 votes cast. In the caucus states, it is one delegate per every 2,000 votes or less.

-----------------------

Tim, I think you make a good point, but there is a however. At the end of the day, I want each state to be somewhat accurate in delegates given out to each candidate versus each candidates true popularity in each state. The fewer locations that one can vote in, the limited time of day, the ability for those in charge to actually have power over others, and the lack of real verification all make the caucuses ripe for inaccuracies. Older people just will not go to a caucus the way the younger crowd will. People who called into the caucus states discovered that as many as 1 in 7 democrats could not physically handle the rigors of a caucus situation. Add in others who are older and just can't make that one specific time frame and we may be talking 1 in 5 Hillary voters did not come out.

Because of the deception that has been caused by the caucus votes, I will NOT vote for Obama and I was actually neutral before this happened.

It is harder to have an inaccurate vote when the state's population as a whole gets to vote, and gets all day to vote, that did not go on in the caucus states.

I just don't like the idea that 1.1 million caucus votes should ride herd over 30 million primary votes to the extent that they have.

Anonymous said...

How can you blame Obama (by not voting for him) for the results of the caucuses? Thats petty and irrational. How can anyone take you seriously after you are blaming a candidate for something that is entirely up to the state parties, which he as no affiliation with. You are ridiculous and insane.

Alessandro Machi said...

You believe that the Obama camp had no part in the gross inequity of the caucus vote yet there have been several accusations of unfair and forceful behavior by the younger Obama supporters at several caucuses.

Even if we leave that aspect alone, the way caucuses are run in general doesn't allow for a fair representation of all kinds of voters and age ranges.

Caucuses and the way they are run tend to favor the under 35 crowd and virtually eliminates the over 50 crowd, and the over 65 crowd moreso. We keep talking about not disenfranchising the youth, but the democratic party needs to consider the swelling protest vote that could emerge in which older dems either don't vote at all, or vote for McCain, because they were specifically underrepresented in the caucus votes.

Obama has been portrayed as the runaway winner for the past two months when the reality is the race was a dead heat, and that is why I have taken my position. Keep in mind, even when I alter the delegate votes to more realistic levels for both candidates, Obama still maintains a 60% to 40% delegate advantage in most instances.

Anonymous said...

It is too bad we don't have an investigative journalist to report on the actual realities that took place during these Caucus'.

The harrassment, the non-verification of I.D., the busing in of voters, the lost unused ballots. What a travesty.

Yes, I do blame Obama and his camp; as they were the ones "training" these supporters.
They trained to be aggressive, cause chaos during Identification process and destroy or never deliver ballots/result sheets.

For those of you that don't believe, there is video proof. Clinton campaign is not bringing this out, as they are trying NOT to destroy the democratic party.

We have been overtaken by third world politics.....

Fight for America....Fight for your VOTE !

If you live in a Caucus state, get organized, rally, get up petitions and stop this from ever happening again !

As far as this season, it ain't over until we get to the Convention. No matter who these super-delegates have endorsed, they are not actually voting until August.

A lot of news and events will take place before August. They WILL vote to have the strongest candidate to beat John McCain; and, that is HILLARY CLINTON !

Anonymous said...

I live in Washington, am over 60 and disabled, I was unable to get a ride to the caucus. I voted in the primary for Hillary and I WILL NOT vote for Barack Obama. I would be more than willing to sign a petition to do away with caucuses if someone would write it. I would write it, but I don't know how. I agree with you on caucus math, especially in Washington where the primarary is non-binding. Nominee or not Hillary will get my vote, I will write it in.
Lori White
river-witch@tds.net

Bobbie said...

One person = one vote. Obama and co. took advantage of the caucus system. He does not deserve the delegate votes he has accrued. This is why I would never vote for him in the GE. He cheated big time! Hopefully this will all come before its too late.