Do the (Delegate) Math

Something in one of kos' blogs; a comment by "ayjaymay":

I ask for your help in stopping the spread of the popular vote myth throughout the media for the Democratic nomination. Many TV, radio and newspaper associates continue to claim that a valid path for the superdelegates to choose Hillary Clinton is if she wins the so-called popular vote.

However, the popular vote should not be considered in the discussion (and thus be removed from all conversation, and be disregarded by the superdelegates) because adding caucus results to primary results is like adding apples and oranges (never mind that it's not even a part of any of the contest rules!).

Not an apples-to-apples comparison: The popular vote in caucus states inherently under-represents the state's population when compared to that of primary states, because fewer people participate in caucuses. Therefore, we use delegates to 'normalize' these two systems: the number of delegates won is representative of how the state voted, regardless of the system it chooses to select them.

Some 5th grade math: It's like adding 1/4 to 1/2. Before you add 1/4 to 1/2, you have to first create a common denominator - the delegate is that common denominator.

Let's take an example: Washington state (which Obama won) vs Oklahoma (which Clinton won). Since Washington State is a relatively populous state, it's awarded 78 delegates. However, since it used caucuses to determine it's delegates, it added very little to Obama's popular vote advantage (+90,000 according to some sources), despite his winning by a HUGE margin there (53-25 in delegates). Compare that to Clinton's win in Oklahoma, which is about half the size of Washington: She won the popular vote in Oklahoma 55%-31%, though only came away with a 10 delegate advantage (24-14). However, she gained a +100,000 popular vote advantage since it's a primary state and many more people participated than in Washington's caucus.

Even though Clinton comes out ahead in the popular vote between these two states (Okla -(minus) Wash = +10,000), I don't think anybody would debate that her Oklahoma win was more significant than Obama's Washington state win (Okla isn't a "big state" after all!). I'd love it if all the news programs (and talk shows) stopped trying to use the popular vote to compare these two candidates. We have had this system which has been effective at normalizing these two processes for a very, very, long time, so please focus on the only math that matters: the delegate math!

Of course, the Clinton campaign will continue to push the popular vote question, and dedicate quite a bit of time discussing this myth leading up to Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida, since it's the only numbers that they can spin the media into believing, though this is really 5th grade math, and they definitely aren't 'Smarter than a 5th Grader' here.

Last night, Senator Clinton discussed the popular vote with her major fundraisers as a viable path to her nomination. Today, Ed Rendell is flooding the airwaves spinning this myth.

Please help end all discussions around the so-called popular vote and its relevance to the nomination.

If what's said here is true (an it sure looks that way) people need to spread the word that whether a state does caucasus or primaries has an impact on the popular vote count.