h/t to maddy and/or donjo for the link to this chart:

http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2008_Primaries.htm

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

I'm not only all for going by the popular vote in both primaries and the GE, but am very for a national primary election day. Make it June 1st, with the primary season starting January 1st. If you can't pick a nominee (in either party) in six months maybe we shouldn't be allowed to vote.

"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers

However, in addition to pointing out what BTD has diaried, I was going to emphasize the democracy denied nature of excluding the Florida and Michigan delegations and including the Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina delegations. That's because the delegates from the first two each represent far more votes cast than do the delegates from the last three.

As BTD so clearly shows, the so-called "pledged" delegates definitely do not reflect "the will of the people." That is true whether or not we include Florida and Michigan delegates. At the same time, it is patently ridiculous for the "Democratic" Party to refuse to seat delegates who each represent several thousand votes cast in those two states while it is quite willing to seat delegates representing far fewer votes cast in dozens of other states, at least three of which also violated Democratic party rules.

I raised a number of other problems with the erroneous claim that the "pledged" delegates represent the "will of the people" in this diary

The trouble is that neither the outcomes in Democratic caucuses nor the outcomes in Democratic primaries reflect "the will of the people". Neither do they reflect the will of Democrats. They instead reflect only the will of the voters in those contests.

It's quite clear that Obama has dominated in caucus states. Many of the delegates he has won come from those states. However, caucuses have never mirrored "the will of the people". They reflect, instead, the will of a relatively small percentage of eligible voters. They are, in fact, far less democratic than primaries, which also fail to fully reflect "the will of the people", since the participants are generally comprised of mostly one party, together with some independents and a group of cross-over voters. So, one thing the Democratic Party needs to balance out (if it hopes to have a candidate who really appeals to the majority of anticipated voters in the GE - or as it is frequently called, "the will of the people") is the relative weight it thinks delegates picked in caucuses ought to have vis-a-vis delegates picked in primary states.

It's also very clear that (until this latest round in Texas and Ohio), Obama has generally done better in states that hold open primaries where Republicans and Independents get to vote as if they were Democrats. Indeed, the Obama campaign was rather proud of that until today. Many Obama supporters argued that it showed that he had widespread appeal beyond the Democratic Party. However, what they were ignoring is that many of those Republican crossovers were simply "gaming the system" in his favor. They would not listen to that, however, insisting that those were all genuine converts, and refusing to accept the fact that the Republican Party did not wish to face Hillary next November. However, Rush Limbaugh and other right wing talk show hosts had been advocating cross-overs for Obama from the very start for the express purpose of preventing another Clinton in the White House. Interestingly, now that he figures Obama will win the nomination, Limbaugh reversed his orders to his "ditto heads", and urged them to vote for Hillary so that she can hurt Obama (who Rush still thinks will be the nominee). Only now are Obama supporters crying foul! It's no fair! Well, the truth is it wasn't fair when they crossed over to vote for Obama either. And the larger truth here is that the Democratic Party should not allow itself to be victimized by such Republican dirty tricks.

Moreover, the Obama camp strongly opposes the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegations only. Meanwhile, they favor the seating of the Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina delegations. As all five states held their primaries/caucuses in violation of Democratic Party rules, it seems peculiar to deny the so-called "will of the people" in Florida and Michigan while accepting it in the other three offending states.

Finally, "the will of the people" in January is one thing. In March, it's another. By next November, it is likely to be yet another (at least percentage-wise).

As I say in that diary, super-delegates should not be pressured into following the Obama camp's exhortation to cast their votes according to the so-called "will of the people" as it is so poorly reflected in the numbers of pledged delegates that will be seated at the convention in Denver. They instead, ought to feel duty bound to make the wisest possible choice for the good of all of us.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

made today by BTD:

Why Obama Does Not Want ReVotes In Florida and Michigan

There are some who hold the view that Barack Obama will welcome revote primaries in Florida and Michigan. I think that view defies common sense. I'll explain why on the flip.

First, Hillary Clinton's narrative to the Superdelegates is that Obama can not win the big contested states critical in the general election. No states better fit the bill than Florida and Michigan (along with Ohio.) These have been the battlegrounds for the past two elections. The GOP has "won" 2 out of 3 twice and secured the Presidency that way. In order to make that case, Clinton will of course want to win contested primaries in both Florida and Michigan. The perception is she won uncontested primaries. By having revotes, she can make it plain that she is the one who will win them.

Second, Hillary needs to focus on the popular vote totals, a contest she can take the lead in, unlike the pledged delegate race. She needs a "will of the people" argument, and the popular vote fills that bill. Right now, Florida and Michigan are not truly being considered in the popular vote calculation. Revotes will cause that they be considered.

Third, Hillary is actually likely to do much better in revotes. Why? Because John Edwards is now out of the race. Hillary will win the lion's share of his votes. In Florida, Edwards captured 14%, or 249,000 votes. Hillary will get most of those. She is likely to do even better in the popular vote and pledged delegate counts in a revote.

Fourth, momentum, perception and wins. Winning big states closer to the decision time for super delegates helps Hillary with the psychology of the super delegates. Suppose Hillary finishes up winning Puerto Rico, Florida and Michigan gaining a net advantage of close to 100 delegates and say close to a million votes in the popular vote. That will be the LAST bit of data that the super delegates will see. If Hillary has a plausible narrative in terms of why she is more electable (the big contested state narrative), a plausible "will of the people" argument (the popular vote lead), and the last big wins in the contest (momentum), she will have a very credible case to make and a very credible chance to win the nomination.

So why would Obama not want all this? This question is how could he possibly want ANY of it? And the one answer is this -- it will help him in the general election in Michigan and Florida. I believe that if this is not done, he will have no chance in those two states. If Obama could build a plausible narrative for not counting Florida and Michigan, he would use it. But that train has left the station. He has no choice, imo, but to put a good face on it and fight like crazy to keep Hillary from winning big in both states.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/10/11531/9986

My personal opionion is NO RE-VOTE. The people voted, they came out in record numbers. In MI, stacking up Edwards, Obama and Dodd on one ticket, Hillary still won. There is clear evidence everywhere that people were encouraged to vote, including Rep. Conyers encouraging people to vote "uncommitted" -- not to mention the out-of-state phone calls from the Obama campaign encouraging people to do the same. Let the voices of the people be heard.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

What I am interested in is following the will of the DEM voters.

Looks like Obama is up to his old tricks.....now in PA

From Raising Kane

Let's not forget about that kitchen sink that Hillary Clinton dumped on Barack Obama. Here's how you can help heave it back over the fence to its rightful owner. From a fellow VirginiaforObama'er:

Volunteers are needed in Pennsylvania BEFORE March 24. We have only until that date to register new voters and persuade Independents and Republicans who want to vote for Obama to switch their party registration for the primary. (They can always switch back for the general election.)

The PA primary (April 22) is a closed one, meaning only registered Dems can vote. We have until March 24 to expand our "universe" of Obama voters. After March 24 that window shuts.

There are only two weekends left to do this! If you can travel to PA in that time please do.

If you have not traveled to another state or were unable to canvass on Virginia's election day this is a great opportunity to jump in to what may end up as the most exciting, and crucial, contest of the election.

Philly is 3 hours away, Pitt is 4 hours away. It's a very easy weekend trip.

Also this from the Associated Press ("Enthusiasm tilts toward Obama in Pa."):

"Only Democrats can vote in the state's Democratic primary. The campaigns have until March 24 to sign up new party members from the 984,000 registered voters who are not members of either major party, or from potential defectors among the 3.2 million Republicans or Pennsylvanians who are not registered to vote."

Remember, Obama pulls out the larger primary wins whenever Independents and Republicans are allowed to vote. It's critical that he not only win Pennsylvania, but he forces Clinton out of the race if he beats her handedly.

http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=13345

ht/DCblogger

"It's not all about words and math. It comes down to who can win."

and makes a lot of sense.

Florida Do-Over Should Not Ignore First Primary Results

By Craig Crawford

Weighted Delegate Allocations Would Give 1.7M Primary Voters Some Credit

ORLANDO -- Here in Central Florida, a world leader in golf courses per capita, we call it a mulligan -- a shot re-taken because the first one did not work out so well. Still, it doesn't count in regulation play.

But Florida Democrats are abuzz with talk of a political do-over that would make the state's presidential nominating delegates count at the national party convention -- let the voters try again, but this time let them just mail it in.

Not so fast. A mulligan-by-mail might be the easiest, cheapest and quickest way to get Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean out of the sorry mess he created by shunning the nation's biggest swing state to give tiny Nevada and South Carolina early spots on the voting calendar. But more than 1.7 million Democrats who voted in Florida's Jan. 29 primary still deserve to be counted in some way.

Any ad hoc system for a second round of voting ought to assign some delegates based upon the results of the primary already held.

Complex Delegate Rules a Party Tradition

Allocating delegates across multiple sets of balloting is not so unusual in the Democratic Party’s byzantine rules. Most caucus states do not settle on national convention delegates until completing at least one or two in-state conventions. Texas, which voted nearly a week ago, is still trying to distribute delegates based upon its so-called two-step system.

Sure, giving any credence to Florida’s January primary benefits Hillary Rodham Clinton, who won by a margin of 16.7 percentage points. But the principle would remain the same no matter who had won -- those Democrats who bothered to vote should not be ignored because the Republican governor and GOP-controlled Florida Legislature enacted a state law that leapfrogged the DNC calendar. (That law also violated national Republican rules, but the GOP only stripped the Florida party of half its convention delegation and there was no campaigning ban.)

After championing the rights of Florida voters in the 2000 debacle, is the DNC really prepared to erase the votes of 1.7 million Democrats in a state that has proven to be decisive in general elections?

Ballot Reform Tradeoff

Before this meltdown, the DNC could have given Florida a waiver as it did for other states in unusual circumstances. And none of those granted waivers faced a situation like Florida's Democratic leaders, who were powerless to stop a Republican drive to mess with the presidential primary calendar.

Florida Democrats, by the way, went along with the calendar mischief largely because they won a significant compromise with Republicans in the same piece of legislation -- to end paperless voting in the state's new computerized balloting system so that a paper trail will be available in case the machine tallies are challenged. Despite achieving a reform long sought by national party leaders, Florida Democrats were still punished for agreeing to an early primary date in exchange for it.

Excuses Aside, Voters Saw Obama Ads

Barack Obama’s team argues that it would not be fair to count the Florida Primary results because both sides agreed not to campaign in the state.

Well, I was here in Orlando for the entire month leading up to that primary, recuperating from a broken ankle and, sadly, watching a lot of television. I saw Obama’s television advertisements every day, several times a day, running on at least two cable news channels. If cable sales procedures really did not allow excluding one state from a national buy, as Obama aides claim, it does not change the fact that the ads were there at saturation levels on screens throughout Florida.

Likewise, Clinton’s labor friends worked the grass roots for her throughout Florida. And both candidates played games with the rules by doing photo opportunities or press availabilities while attending fundraisers that did not violate the campaign ban.

While neither ran anything close to real campaigns in Florida, Clinton and Obama did enough to keep it an even playing field and those 1.7 million Democrats who cast ballots on Jan. 29 ought to count for something.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.