Posts
One Person, One Vote Concept Destroyed by the Caucus State Votes.
Obama gained a questionable advantage in the democratic electoral process when his caucus state wins far exceeded the realistic margin of victory he would have gained if there had been an actual state primary vote instead of a caucus vote. The caucus state results have netted Barrack Obama an out of whack delegate gain of 169 delegates when compared to the number of people that actually voted. The caucus state wins for Barrack Obama were so out of the realistic margin of victory that if Hillary Clinton were awarded 4 MORE State of California primary victories by the same margin she won the first California Primary, Hillary Clinton would still net less delegates than Barrack Obama did from the caucus state votes.
Lets break down that last statistic to truly understand its meaning. Hillary Clinton won in a convincing manner in California yet 4 Californias and the 16 million and 785,548 votes they represent, including a winning margin for Hillary Clinton of 1 million and 665,340 votes, WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH to overtake Barrack Obama's inflated margin of victory in all the caucus states that involved a vote of only 1.1 million total voters and only 400,000 more votes for Obama. It appears it would take 9 Californias and 33 million votes with a 3.3 million vote advantage for Hillary Clinton to undo the advantage the caucus states inaccurately contributed to the 2008 democratic presidential race.
Do you see why the moment that Barrack Obama had overwhelmingly won undervote caucus states that his camp began bellowing that Hillary could not catch them no matter what! If the Caucus state margins of victory that Barrack Obama won by had actually represented the accurate winning percentage of that states voters, then there is no controversy. Yet look what happened in the State of Washington. Obama won the caucus vote by a 68-31% vote, but then in the non-binding primary vote held 10 days later, Barrack Obama barely won 50% to 49.6%. The danger of caucus vote states is that the much smaller voting sample WILL NOT actually represent the true will of that states populace. Does Barack Obama's "change" involve not accurately representing the true popular vote of each state in the country?
By setting up a caucus system in which one vote actually represents the will of 10 voters, the one person, one vote system has been throw off the rails and Barrack Obama has used this bias to create even more momentum and tumult among the democratic party. It was not until Barrack Obama suggested that Hillary was staying in the race and hurting the democratic party that Hillary's overall popularity dipped in the polls.
Just prior to the Pennsylvania primary, Barrack Obama had 57% of all delegates, but only 51% of the popular vote, further proof how the caucus states have influenced the 2008 Presidential election far beyond the number of people who actually voted.
