Originally posted by grover
reply to post by tylerc25211
What I don't understand is the claim that she has the popular vote when the delegates are alloted by precentage based on the votes.
If that were true; that she has the popular vote, then why is she in the position that she's in?
The claim is based on the absurdity of how the Democrats set up their system. Certain congressional districts were weighted with more delegates than
others. The whole idea was to give more weight to inner city districts.
The best example is Texas. Clinton won Texas by over 100,000 votes, and yet Obama won more delegates. Nevada I think was the same. Clinton won
Nevada's popular vote, and yet Obama was allocated more delegates.
Obama picked up 55 delegates just for winning Illinois in a romp. Clinton picked up a total of 52 delegates for winning the following 5 states:
So does it make sense that Obama's landslide win in Illinois counts more than Clinton's wins in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Tennessee and New
Jersey combined? I don't think so.
Or how about this example. Obama picked up a net 35 delegates in Georgia, a state where just over 1 million people voted.
Clinton LOST delegates in Texas, where 2.5 million people voted, and 100,000 more voted for her.
There is something seriously screwed up with a system where one candidate can pick up 35 delegates for winning a state where 1 million people voted,
and another candidate can LOSE delegates by winning a state where 2.5 million people voted.
Or take the case of Louisiana vs. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Obama picked up 12 delegates in this Louisiana where about 360,000 people
Clinton picked up only 10 delegates in Pennsylvania where 2.5 million people voted, only 9 delegates in Ohio where 2.2 million people voted, and only
11 delegates in New Jersey where 1.1 million people voted.
So Obama's win in a small state like Louisiana was weighted more than Clinton's wins in PA, OH, or NJ. Does that make any sense?
The reality in the numbers in these primaries is that the black vote carried more weight than the white vote. This is just the math. Black districts
were given proportionally more delegate weighting than white districts.
Break it down another way:
In Louisiana, a heavily black state, Obama got 1 delegate for every 6,000 people who voted for him.
In Pennsylvania, Clinton got 1 delegate for every 15,000 people who voted for her. In other words, Clinton needed 3 popular votes for every 1 popular
vote that Obama got.
Or maybe the worst example is Washington D.C. Washington D.C. had a TOTAL of 110,000 people vote. Obama picked up a net gain of 7 delegates in
Washington D.C. He got 1 delegate for every 8,000 popular votes.
In Texas, where Clinton won the popular vote by over 100,000 votes, she received 1 delegates for every 22,000 popular votes.
So the black vote in Washington D.C. was allocated 1 delegate for every 8,000 people who voted, while the white middle-class and hispanic voters were
given 1 delegate for every 22,000 votes in Texas. Again, it's nearly a 3 to 1 ratio in the weight given to voters in the heavily black areas
compared to the non-black areas.
Of course Clinton is ready to spit because she can't come out publicly and point this out about the disparity between the weight given to the black
and white voters. She would be crucified in the media and within her own party.