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
- Are the men of violence back in British politics?
- The liberalism we need: a platform for people to thrive and live their version of a best life
- Britain has too much government and too little democratic power
- Mathew on Monday: It’s time to take big money out of British politics
- Reform donations row shows how facts get trampled at Westminster
Search
Op-eds
-
What I would have said about homeless children at Conference (Suzanne Fletcher)
-
Caron’s kitchen table diary (Caron Lindsay)
-
Tom Arms’ World Review (Tom Arms)
-
What’s on at Conference today? (Caron Lindsay)
-
Lib Dems need a 25-year vision that sets out how we’ll change Britain (Phil Wainewright)
Recent Comments
Phil Wainewright
Yes @Tim Rogers of course we need policies that deliver for people now. My point is that, if we don’t put those policies in the context of our longer term goa...
Christina Evans
Very sensible idea, lib dems ,labour and greens form a coalition if we get a hung parliament. Kemi Badenoch has given a nod that the Tories would go in with the...
Suzanne Fletcher
Yes I agree re the backdrop, just what is wrong with promoting who we are and what we stand for, rather than meaningless "fairer" type slogans. Good to read Ca...
Tim Rogers
Sorry but l do not believe that the British people would accept a message of golden times in 25 years They are tired of reasoned and calm debate that got us to...
Tim Rogers
Argentina are past masters at sabre rattling so I do not see the Falklands as under imminent threat. Milei faces an election next year and is in an unenviable p...



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…