When Good Math Goes Bad or Why the Delegate Count Counts

Let's head this one off at the pass and start with the following: I am not a Hillary-hater. In fact, some Obama supporters (like my significant other whom I lovingly and lazily refer to as my signif) think I am too soft on Clinton from time to time. However, for the purposes of this conversation, the Clinton camp - and the media - are going to take a little heat.

Greg at TPM Election Central reports Governor Ed Rendell is now voicing an up-and-coming Clinton meme: "that the popular vote is at least as democratic a metric for judging the winner as the pledged delegate count."

Let's make this simple. You can't give the popular vote the same weight as the delegate count in a mixed system. Some states have primaries. Some states have caucuses. More people turn out for primaries than caucuses. Why? Because it is a heck of a lot easier to show up at some point during the day and push a button than it is to stand around in a gym for two hours and listen to speeches.

So states with primaries are better represented than states with caucuses simply because of the type of election processes in place. And the delegate allocation system - if I am not mistaken - has been designed specifically to counteract this discrepancy.

For example -

In the Wisconsin primary, about 1.1 million people voted.
In the Minnesota caucus, about 210,000 people voted.

Again, keep in mind that it's a lot tougher to break away for hours to caucus than it is to show up to a poll and just vote.

The delegate allocation system takes this into consideration.

Wisconsin had 74 pledged delegates
Minnesota had 72 pledged delegates.

It's why The Biggest Loser measures percent of weight lost versus actual pounds. Because the big 400 lb guy is going to have more weight to lose - and be able to lose it more quickly - than the 175 lb woman. Percentages even the playing field.

Toss out this system, and Wisconsin gets more than five times the "say" of Minnesota in the democratic primary. Minnesota is essentially penalized for holding a caucus. And even though Senator Obama is winning the popular vote and the delegate count at this stage, if the caucus states had held primaries, it would be safe to assume the following:

Obama's delegate lead may have been cut slightly, but his popular vote lead would be almost insurmountable.

Take a look at a quick comparison of caucus wins:

Obama (12 states): Hawaii, Wyoming, Washington, Nebraska, Minnesota, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, Colorado, Maine, and Iowa.

Clinton (1 state): Nevada

(Texas is weird - not the state, the system - so I'm excluding it for the time being.)

So assuming you're still with me, I say now'd be a good time for informed election experts on the teevee to start debunking this new Clinton campaign strategy. Don't even let them take the goalposts out of the ground, let alone move them once again.