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
-
A plea from a member – more ambition and less equine pacification please… (Nick Baird)
-
Will the real Green party that cared about people and planet please stand up? (Kobe Bibbon)
-
We need better conversations on AI and the environment (Josh Matthews)
-
How to spot a Racist (Ben Rich)
-
Councils must help music – so music can help their communities flourish (Charlie Clinton & Josh Matthews)
A Week in Politics #9
The Joy of Six 1589
The oldest pub in Swansea and the secret tunnel
Recent Comments
Anthony Acton
What I find so disappointing about the last 2 years is that the 2024 GE result gave the party a massive boost in resources and, potentially, political influenc...
Nigel Jones
I agree with Nigel Quinton, Tony Robertson and Katharine Pindar on the lack of a clear party lead on our overall vision for the future of the country which must...
Katharine Pindar
Ed concluded our Autumn Conference by telling us that 'We are in the fight of our lives - and we will win!' Of course, rapturous applause followed. But somehow ...
Tim L
In my experience of San Francisco, driverless cabs are smooth and courteous. I wish all drivers, there and here, were as good. I am sure in due course they will...
Nigel Quinton
@Tony R - absolutely right. Burnham is echoing so much of what we have been shouting about (and being ignored) for years. Electoral reform, localism, social car...
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…