Saturday, May 03, 2008

The pledged delegate sham

Super-smart Paul Lukasiak breaks out why the pledged delegate count is a ridiculous metric for selecting a nominee:

As far as Obama’s supporters are concerned, a voter in Ohio is worth only 1/23 of a voter in Alaska. In Alaska, 8,877 voters chose the state’s 13 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention, or 683 voters per delegate. In Ohio, 2,194,851 voters chose that state’s 141 pledged delegate. That’s 15,566 voters per delegate.

Or perhaps Obama’s supporters really think that a voter in Ohio is worth only 1/37 of an Alaskan voter. Based on the support of 4480 more people, Barack Obama picked up 5 more delegates to the Democratic Convention than Hillary Clinton in Alaska.. That’s 896 Obama supporters per extra delegate. Clinton picked up 7 more delegates than Obama in Ohio, based on her support from 229,873 more Ohioans, or 32,839 Clinton supporters per extra delegate.

In other words, if the Democratic National Committee treated the votes of Alaskans and Ohioans as equal, and gave Clinton an extra delegate for every 893 supporters in Ohio, Clinton would have received not 7, but 257 more delegates than Obama from that state. But thanks to the way in which the DNC allocates delegates, and DNC’s willingness to permit different states to select their Convention delegates in an undemocratic fashion, Clinton gets only 2 more delegates from Ohio than Obama gets from Alaska, despite the fact that Clinton’s combined popular vote advantage from these two states is over 225,000.

This is just one of the absurdities that lies at the foundation of the argument of Obama supporters that the person who wins the most pledged delegates during the primary season has a right to be the Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008. [Emphasis added.]

Paul offered a tremendous amount of information. I've clipped the opening grafs. Click over for the full picture. Part of Paul's conclusion deserves more attention than the A-List fauxgressives have acknowledged:

As of right now, Obama’s delegate lead is almost entirely from “caucus” states – states where each voter is provided with far more weight than in the primary states, and gives individual voters in heavily Republican states three times more influence than voters in crucial swing states when it comes to electing delegates.

Obama lead in primary states is only 8 delegates. Obama 8 vote lead in primary states is based on getting 71 more delegates than Clinton from states that haven’t voted for a Democrat for President in the last three elections, and where Democrats have lost by an average margin of over 16 points in the last three years. In terms of the primary vote totals, Obama is only close to Clinton thanks to these heavily Republican primary states, where he has a lead of more than 813,000 in the popular vote.

Clinton has dominated the primaries in crucial “swing states” and “heavily Democratic” states, garnering the support of over 51,000 more voters than Obama in these states, and winning 63 more delegates there....

...When Obama supporters argue that the delegate count is the only thing that matters, they would have you believe that the outcomes in Ohio and Alaska are not significantly different – only 2 delegates separate the outcome in the two states, and that is all that is important.

It is this kind of thinking that loses Presidential elections. [Emphasis added.]

I've posted previously that I had never paid much attention to the party's peculiar methods of nominating a presidential candidate. Jeebus! Eyes wide open now.

While the Blog Boyz continue their screeching about the pledged delegate count, my response to the Obamasphere is their argument is based on an astoundingly stupid and undemocratic system. UYATUPYRIO. Shame on the party. Paul asked the ultimate question: "WHATEVER HAPPENED TO ONE PERSON = ONE VOTE?"