Why the Popular Vote Should Not Matter in the Primaries

There is considerable tension in the Democratic Primaries because of the virtual tie between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. Because a winner may not triumph through the pledged delegates, the fear, and loathing, is that the Super Delegates will decide the election. But the question remains: how should the Super Delegates, especially those without constituencies, decide for whom to vote?

One suggestion is that the Super Delegates should vote for the person with the most popular votes but not necessarily the winner of the most pledged delegates. This would not work. Here is why:

Please note: I write this not to favor one candidate over another. This is simply a way to discern how we should think about the Delegates and the Super Delegates and the role of the popular vote. On Super Tuesday, both Clinton and Obama received over 1.7 million votes, making the difference almost inconsequential. Clinton did receive more votes, as she did in Nevada, but the difference could easily be made up in other states.

1) The first reason is the most obvious: the democrats designed the winner to be decided on delegates and not the popular vote. The popular vote becomes a red herring in all of this. To decide that the popular vote matters is to change the rules of the game. If the popular vote was to be the most decisive aspect and the candidates knew this going in, then it would be fair to suggest that this would be the way to discern the nominee.

2) It should not matter that the more populated states votes one way and the less populated states votes another. Unless you want to differentiate as to why one democratic voter should have more say that another democratic voter based on his/her geographical location, the difference in location should not matter. It would not be correct to say that the knowledge of voters is greater in one state or that the interests of the voters are more important in one state; instead, voters in all states need to possess the ability to influence the elections. If not, then there would just be the tyranny of the majority. Besides, even though the vote in congressional districts is proportional, the larger states have delegates that go to the winner of the state to try and help the winner of the state, which may not be fair to the people who vote but fair to the candidate.

3) The argument that the winner of Blue States should receive support because the winner of Red States is unlikely to carry the state seems very suspicious. First, there is no reason why a Democrat cannot win a red state, especially with the current state of the country. During the 1980s, Reagan carried Blue States. In the 1990s, William Clinton carried some Red States. Second, the Democratic Nominee needs to win at least one important Red State or a few Red States to win the 2008 Election: this means that Florida, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, and Arizona may be very important to this election. The Democratic nominee needs to find ways to reach out to voters outside of the Democrat base to obtain these states.

4) The “popular vote” seems to be very misleading. Since the States choose the rules for their elections, there is no consistent format. Some states rely on primaries; some states rely on caucuses; some states allow for early voting; some states rely on closed primaries. Consequently, the system chosen will alter the amount of popular vote. Unlike a general election, which would be able to all voters in the same standardized form, the popular vote in the nomination process possesses to many standards to make it legitimate.

5) In some states, voters chose between six candidates; in other states voters chose between three candidates; in other states, the voters chose between two candidates. Even after Edwards left the race, he still received hundreds of thousands of votes on Super Tuesday, alter the vote totals of both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. This questions the legitimacy of the overall popular vote.

6) Finally, the vote in Michigan and Florida is not legitimate in any form and should not contribute to the overall lead. In Michigan, most of the candidates were not on the ballot. In Florida, the candidates agreed not to campaign there. Some voters, knowing full well that the vote would not count, stayed home. The vote of these states is not reflective of anything. To add the vote to the overall popular vote and to argue that it needs to be counted would incorporate even more illegitimacy into the process. If these states followed the rules, then these states would have been even more important—imagine if the Florida primary was this week or next week. It would have a tremendous amount of influence on the election. However, since the candidates agreed to the rules, the rules must stand and this vote should not matter in any form.

Based on these reasons, the role of the popular vote should not be considered as a relevant factor in determining the Democratic nominee. Delegates and Super Delegates should examine other factors.