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
-
Winning Britain’s Cities: A Liberal Vision for Urban Britain (Patrick Stillman)
-
Tom Arms’ World Review (Tom Arms)
-
Observations of an Expat: Canada (Tom Arms)
-
Remember why we started: What the Hong Kong Alliance case means for Hong Kong’s future (Arthur Wu)
-
Are the Liberal Democrats invisible? (Veronica-Mae Soar)
-
Gareth Epps and the quiet lanes of Oxfordshire
-
Government says it won't tackle election turnout blindspot
-
The ongoing cost of Brexit
-
After Dark podcast: Dr Louise Brangan on the Magdalene laundries
-
Dunston fair video
-
The Joy of Six 1569
-
Marjory Allen encounters the ban on child actors in British films
-
Wyn Griffith and David Lloyd George
-
Etran de L'Aïr: Imouha
-
DNA Methylation Clocks - what utility do they have?
Recent Comments
Peter Hirst
Our political strategy as I understand it does not make it easy for us to have a single message that gives us the publicity we need. We can talk about empowerme...
Mahmood Faiz
As someone from the Kashmiri community and Chair of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Kashmir, I believe there is a significant opportunity for the Liberal Democr...- Peter Hirst
Our defence policy should be centred around fostering our relationships with countries that have shared interests, values and where we can make a meaninful cont... - Peter Hirst
Relationships are key to most issues. Your relationship with others, the state, political parties, and issues such as democracy. To come to these with an open m... - Peter Hirst
The issues as I see them stem from a lack of transparency and accountability in public life. I might add a rotten system with no rules and unfairness ingrained ...
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…