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.
Subscribe
-
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
-
Like us on Facebook
-
Subscribe to our feed
-
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Most Read
Search
Op-eds
-
What really happened? (Simon Banks)
-
Why community politics matters (Mark Corner)
-
A Federal Britain: 1. Renewing democracy through fair representation (Iain Donaldson)
-
A roadmap to Queer Equality (Tara Foster)
-
A strange but welcome feeling (Jennie Rigg)
-
From Norman settlement to a civic square
-
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
-
"The old savage England": D.H. Lawrence visits the Stiperstones
-
Church Green video
-
Doing my bit at Whickham Church Green
-
Have a goat day tomorrow!
-
Pride inside instead
-
Replacing a one party state with another
-
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
-
The Joy of Six 1528
Recent Comments
Jeff
How relevant is this to Trump’s MAGA movement, to Farage and Reform? Of little to none I would have thought. The political ideologies that came to d...
Nonconformistradical
I second Henry's comments about Barrow - this south-eastener has at least, albeit not recently, set foot in the Barrow constituency (visiting friends who lived ...
John Peters
I would not have classed Barrow-in-Furness as post industrial. For decades it has had the same major employer - the dockyards. It manafactures the UK's nuclear ...
David Raw
@ Daniel Walker, "we should have the cheapest possible democracy". I didn't say that, Daniel, though what I imply is that the party needs to prove to and mak...
Henry
I do get very annoyed by the comments on these by-election posts. The over-exaggeration of our comeback because we won last week and then complain when we finis...
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…