All states should be. But isn't the problem that these four states haven't released actual vote totals? I guess the best thing we can do is estimate the popular vote totals in those caucus states that haven't released or didn't even keep raw vote totals.
I agree with you. And when we use vote estimates, it puts Obama back in the lead.
Ah, so you're a troll. I get it now.
Your principles don't matter to you in the slightest, it would appear. The only thing that matters is a way to count votes that helps your candidate.
Why, oh why, don't these four states matter? Hillary won one of them anyway.
Reaper, you have a logical flaw in your argument. In order for a troll's principals to matter, they must first exist.
</snap>
The rules say it's a delegate race so since the pop vote is a "will of the voter" moral argument you have to try to determine the will of the voters - all of the voters - or you lose the ability to use the argument. That means no zero out of MI.
Key word: VOTERS
Caucus attendees can not represent registered voters at large.
Taking Texas and Nebraska as examples, it is clear that a public VOTE can produce very different results from a caucus.
You can not reliably extrapolate caucus results to the general populace.
Think what would have been in 2000 if we could have counted the Floridans that "would have voted had they known"...
Caucus voters are sexist. I can prove this by using CAPITAL LETTERS.
You got up to 6 real quick - I've got money on double figures by August!
I'd say triple figures. I expect this account to last for maybe a day. Luckily, I've prepared others.
Love the link too.
That's an argument against the pop vote being a measure in this race since caucuses are allowed as I agree that caucuses are hard to reliably count since the states don't keep accurate tallies.
You don't get to change the rules because you don't like the results. Not YOU but Clinton.
Please reread what I wrote. I am not talking about doing anything more than figuring out how many people showed up at the caucus and counting them as best we can.
I am not talking about projecting those results onto a larger group. That's not what I meant, and I expect you to read this and acknowledge it.
yep - he's leading by 80,751 or 0.22% according to RCP and you wonder why many dont think its over?
Does Canada us PR? I wonder if this is partly an issue of perspective.
huh? do you mean popular vote? if so - yes and no - we have a pass-the-post system where we only vote for our MP (member of parliament) - the party that wins the most seats in the house, the defacto party leader becomes the prime minister. but our system is also flawed as well.
No, I meant proportional representation.
yes we do and that is one of the problems we have - we have huge cities like where i live where millions of people live who have areas that thousands of people which share the same weight as rural areas with very small populations. so yes, from my perspective 1 person 1 vote is da bomb!
