Posted by Jed Lewison on Thu May 29, 2008 at 4:50 PM Pacific

More ways the "popular vote" argument screws Michigan

Here's some more examples of how Clinton's "popular vote" argument screws Michigan:

  • 12 states that have a smaller population than Michigan nonetheless cast more votes
  • In these states, on average the population was 6.6 million and the number of votes cast was 1 million.
  • Michigan's population is 10 million and just under 600,000 people voted.
  • Therefore, on a per capita basis, the 12 states states with smaller populations but more voters would have 2.6 times the impact of Michigan if Clinton's popular vote argument were adopted, violating the Federalist principles upon which our system of government is based.

What Clinton is proposing is essentially the same as eliminating congressional districts and the senate with a system of proportional representation. Perhaps there's some merit to the idea, but I think everybody would agree that it would be unfair to have national elections for the Senate while different states have different rules for voting. (For example, Oregon, with vote by mail, would have disproportionate influence.)

The point is that while Clinton's "popular vote" war cry has some jingoistic resonance, upon closer examination, it falls apart under its own weight, independent of who it would help or hurt.

Again, the key principle here is that under our nomination system, each state -- within certain guidelines -- is free to choose its own system for electing pledged delegates. It's absurd to add together the "votes" from each of these systems, because in each state, a vote means something different.

And when you do go down that path, you end up with bizarre results, such as this one: under Clinton's standards, on a per capita basis, Wisconsin would have 3.4 times as much clout as Michigan. Surely any standard that would yield a result like that is deeply flawed -- and should not be adopted the Democratic Party.

More ways the "popular vote" argument screws Michigan

Here's some more examples of how Clinton's "popular vote" argument screws Michigan:

  • 12 states that have a smaller population than Michigan nonetheless cast more votes
  • In these states, on average the population was 6.6 million and the number of votes cast was 1 million.
  • Michigan's population is 10 million and just under 600,000 people voted.
  • Therefore, on a per capita basis, the 12 states states with smaller populations but more voters would have 2.6 times the impact of Michigan if Clinton's popular vote argument were adopted, violating the Federalist principles upon which our system of government is based.

What Clinton is proposing is essentially the same as eliminating congressional districts and the senate with a system of proportional representation. Perhaps there's some merit to the idea, but I think everybody would agree that it would be unfair to have national elections for the Senate while different states have different rules for voting. (For example, Oregon, with vote by mail, would have disproportionate influence.)

The point is that while Clinton's "popular vote" war cry has some jingoistic resonance, upon closer examination, it falls apart under its own weight, independent of who it would help or hurt.

Again, the key principle here is that under our nomination system, each state -- within certain guidelines -- is free to choose its own system for electing pledged delegates. It's absurd to add together the "votes" from each of these systems, because in each state, a vote means something different.

And when you do go down that path, you end up with bizarre results, such as this one: under Clinton's standards, on a per capita basis, Wisconsin would have 3.4 times as much clout as Michigan. Surely any standard that would yield a result like that is deeply flawed -- and should not be adopted the Democratic Party.

The Jed Report Home Page

© Jed Lewison