If the Democrat primaries were being run on first past the post (rather than allocating delegates in proportion to the votes won by the different Presidential candidates), then Hillary Clinton would now be the Democrat nominee for President, despite having won fewer votes overall.
Share:- Most Read
- Recent Comments
- Op-eds
Search
Liberal Democrat Voice is an independent, collaborative website run by Liberal Democrat activists,
where any individual inside or outside the party can express their views. Views expressed on this website are those of the
individuals who express them and may not reflect those of the party.
Poll
-
For the Honourable Lady Mark
-
Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment
-
The Rebellion are just plain wrong
-
The Lib Dem Ideology - And how to influence them
-
Prayer and Local Government - between a rock and a hard place?
-
Drc
-
Colour your life!
-
Watch Cllr Fower on YouTube!
-
The return of the Returning Officer...
-
Garrard SP25 Mk II
4 Comments
That’s a dubious claim. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Obama did very well where state parties held caucuses, where the totaled votes cast were lower than in states which held primaries. In these states Clinton tended to do better overall. Had all states used the same electoral system then Obama may have received most votes. Why are you trying to talk up Hillary when Barack is evidently the candidate more aligned with Liberal Democrat positions than Labour???
B. Stearn:
I think you miss hte major point here – Mark is pointing out that Clinton has less votes, but if FPTP had been used she’d have won.
Its pointing out the way that FPTP can produce absurd outcomes rather than talking up Clinton.
Actually the delegates don’t seem to be allocated in proportion to the votes won by the different Presidential candidates, because if they were, Hillary would have more delegates from Nevada and Texas, where she won the popular vote, but now Obama has more delegates from both states. I understand, that they actually use a sort of first past the post, but they have now breaken the states to sort-of one-member constituencies, whereas previously the winner got all delegates of the state.
NN unfortunately it ain’t that simple… In fact just about each state uses a slightlky different system, some have caucuses and some polls and some both and some whole state and some sub divisions – tere is some very good explanatory information via abc.com’s political pages – facinating stuff but the Dems still don’t have one candidate!
I suspect what’s keeping Hillary going is the GE opinion poll analysis that she has a better chance of beating McCain and the belief that this could swing the superdelegates and the convention vote.. Have a look at:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
facinating stuff if you are interested in psephology and bear in mind that the Novemeber poll is for state votes in an electoral colege not for the president… so that’s another quirky system…