Why the popular vote doesn't matter

A Politico reader makes an interesting point about Hillary Clinton's reliance on the "popular vote" as a reliable, and perhaps even dispositive, metric of public support:

I wonder whether the technical difficulties in counting the popular vote obscure a more fundamental reason why it's an uninformative metric for the strength of the candidates - namely, it was never contested. Both campaigns were (or should have been, anyway) focussed on accumulating delegates. To do this they developed very specific strategies. Obama invested resources in caucus states, a place he could garner many delegates but not much of the popular vote, for instance. Even in primary states, the candidates focussed much of their efforts on certain (odd-number-of-delegate or otherwise mathematically interesting) districts over others. So although the popular vote might appear like it should be a good measure of overall preference, it seems to me more of a coincidental consequence of how delegate strategies played out.

That's absolutely true. Of course, it's equally true, if not moreso, in the November election, when candidates focus on the Electoral College, not on general popular-vote turnout. Would Al Gore have "won" the popular vote by 0.5% in 2000 if Bush's campaign had invested more resources in "running up the score," if you will, in the red states? Would Bush have "won" by 2.5% in 2004 if Kerry's people had been mounting truly intensive (because potentially decisive) get-out-the-vote efforts in places like Los Angeles, New York and Chicago? The broader lesson is that the process matters, and you really shouldn't try to judge an election by a metric other than the intended one. You gotta follow the process, or you get results of very limited utility.

Somewhat relatedly, I would direct your attention to my recently revised article defending the Electoral College. Among other things, I've revised my hypothetical 2012 scenario: Mike Huckabee, instead of Jeb Bush, is now President Obama's opponent. :) Let it be known, by the way, that in the original version of article, I pegged Obama as the hypothetical 2012 incumbent, way back in April 2007 -- heh!

Comments

[Andrew]

"So although the popular vote might appear like it should be a good measure of overall preference, it seems to me more of a coincidental consequence of how delegate strategies played out."

That's absolutely true. Of course, it's equally true, if not moreso, in the November election, when candidates focus on the Electoral College, not on general popular-vote turnout. Would Al Gore have "won" the popular vote by 0.5% in 2000 if Bush's campaign had invested more resources in "running up the score," if you will, in the red states? Would Bush have "won" by 2.5% in 2004 if Gore's people had been mounting truly intensive (because potentially decisive) get-out-the-vote efforts in places like Los Angeles, New York and Chicago? The broader lesson is that the process matters, and you really shouldn't try to judge an election by a metric other than the intended one. You gotta follow the process, or you get results of very limited utility.

Come on Brendan, you're ignoring one of the points of 2000, which is that Democrats don't give a damn about the Electoral College -- only the popular vote counts. That's why such an argument may just resonate with the party faithful.

[Brendan Loy]

I know it will resonate. But it's substantively flawed.

[David K.]

And Republicans would have been crying the exact same tune had the situation been reversed.

[Joe Loy]

Well I'm going to Say something Unusual. I'm sick of the Popular Vote. [Apologies to Tom Loy, RIP ]

1952 campaign vignette (anecdotal :) ~

Voter, shaking the candidate's hand: "Oh, Governor Stevenson, I just want to tell you that all the Thinking people of this country are For you."

Adlai: "Thank you, Madam; but I need a Majority."

:)

[jlr]

Would Bush have "won" by 2.5% in 2004 if Gore's people had been mounting truly intensive (because potentially decisive) get-out-the-vote efforts in places like Los Angeles, New York and Chicago?

I assume you mean Kerry, right?

[Angrier and Angrier]

It's interesting that Hillary Clinton is telling Super Delegates to support her because Barack Obama "can't win." I would like to know what the thinking is behind that statement. Is it because he is black?

[Ken]

It's interesting that Hillary Clinton is telling Super Delegates to support her because Barack Obama "can't win." I would like to know what the thinking is behind that statement. Is it because he is black?

I'm sure that Obama is telling the undecided superdelegates that Hillary "can't win" of course...presumably because she is a woman. :)

Obviously both candidates are telling superdelegates that the other can't win...after all they are trying to persuade them (in what they presumably thought would be confidential discussions) to announce support for O or C respectively.

What I find troubling about the article where Clinton is reported to have told Richardson that Obama can't win is not that she did so but that Richardson and/or his handlers reported the conversation publicly. I have have never thought much of him anyway though...so I guess I should not be surprised.

[Brendan Loy]

Oops, jlr. Yes. Thanks. Will fix.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Ken-

My initial reaction was the same regarding Richardson. Then I started thinking about how Bill Clinton is out there saying "Richardson lied to my face 15 times" and Carville is saying "Richardson got his 30 pieces of gold" and thought to myself, "I would probably do the same thing." Especially if the lying charge by Bill Clinton is totally bogus.

[Sandy Underpants]

Obama can't win because Americans are voting for their favorite pastor this November, instead of stupid issues like Iraq and the Economy.

[Angrier and Angrier]

I think it is interesting that the media haven't really delved into John McCain's military past. Do most people know that he crashed five military jets? In fact, before he was shot down (or crashed his own plane) in Vietnam, he had wrecked four jets and was relegated to being a flight instructor. He was only called up to fly because the Navy was in desperate need of pilots.

Also, under the Geneva Convention and military code, McCain should have only given his name, rank and serial number to the Viet -Cong. However, while in captivity he participated in extensive interviews with local journalists who published in comments in North Vietnam's major newspapers.

John McCain is a hero. But that fact shouldn't mean that his military record is above scrutiny.

[Brendan]

Angrier, I don't necessarily have a problem with what you're saying, per se, but can I assume you applied this same standard to John Kerry in 2004 -- i.e., you didn't dismiss the Swift Boat Vets out of hand? (That's not to say you agreed with them, necessarily, but I assume, given this attitude, that you at least looked fairly thoroughly into the substance of their claims before dismissing them, if indeed you dismissed them at all? Forgive me for not checking the archives -- I forget if you were even around this blog in 2004 -- I'll trust your word on it. :)

[Brendan]

P.S.

under the Geneva Convention and military code, McCain should have only given his name, rank and serial number to the Viet -Cong

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Geneva Convention governs only what captors are allowed to ask for, not what captives are allowed to say. Now, as to the "military code," maybe you're right, I have no idea.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Brendan-

Like you, I took everything everyone said about John Kerry into consideration. For instance, I believe some of the attacks on Kerry were justified (his claims about being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve and the fact he threw somebody else's medals away, not his own).

The difference between the Swiftboat Vet claims and the John McCain stuff is that a lot of the Swiftboat accusations were opinions (was Kerry injured enough to get that Third Purple Heart? Was he really that brave when he opened up the the guy that won him the Silver Star?) The claims I have pointed out about McCain are facts that can be verified.

[Brendan Loy]

Fair enough.

[Alasdair]

Sandy Underpants - Obama will lose in November if people are paying attention to Iraq ... (grin) ...

The Economy ? Who knows ... those who control Congress can continue their descent into irrelevance while doing their best not to help the Economy by getting in the way as much as possible - or they could work to help the Economy improve (with the risk that McCain would get the 'credit' for an improving economy) ... I know which I would bet is going to happen ...

[Joe Mama]

While Democrats will no doubt pursue A&A's line of inquiry to the fullest, and probably even dig up a serviceman or two who served with McCain and don't have nice things to say about him, there won't be anything like the "Swift Boating" of 2004 this time around for the simple reason that McCain never insulted and offended the military by calling them wholesale rapists, murderers, "Genghis Kahns", etc the way Kerry infamously did (before Congress no less) and then pull a complete 180 by running as a purported hero of the war that he made himself famous for being against. McCain stayed a POW for several more years after he could've been set free once the North Vietnamese learned who his father was, and probably had to suffer through his torturers blasting Kerry's Congressional testimony over the Hanoi Hilton loudspeakers incessantly. McCain is the anti-Kerry. The fact that he may have been a less-than-stellar pilot is insignificant, and Democrats would do themselves a terrible disservice if they tried to attack McCain where he is by far the strongest -- on his military record.

[Sandy Underpants]

It's interesting that McCain crashed five times in airplanes he was piloting, and that Laura Bush killed her boyfriend when she was 17 in a car accident while they drove in separate cars, and that George W. Bush's first business venture was a partnership with the Bin Laden family, and the Bush family use to stay at the Bin Laden palace during visits to Saudi Arabia. But all those facts are never picked up by the MSM for some reason, maybe because Republicans are better at getting out the smear like Obama's evil pastor or John Kerry's fake shrapnel he has in his body to get his fake silver star, bronze star, and three fake purple hearts (all awarded by the US Navy via fraud).

Personally, I think Obama should just re-run the old George W. Bush adds smearing McCains military service and mental instability during the 2000 election. That's a proven winner already.

[Joe Mama]

Some "smears" out themselves . . . others just make the "smearer" look stupid.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Seems to me the President's medical records are made public. I would like to see what kind of treat John McCain did - or did not - receive following five years of captivity and torture in the Hanoi Hilton.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Treatment - not treat. Anyway, I wonder what, if any, help he received to deal with a situation that should have resulted in severe PTSD.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Yeah. Funny how nobody ever discusses how George W. Bush's first company, Arbusto, received financing from Osama bin Laden's brother. And how this brother was killed in a 1988 plane crash in Texas.

[Vince Foster]

Now THAT'S a conspiracy theory!

[Angrier and Angrier]

Okay Vince. You may be dead, but it doesn't change the fact that Osama bin Laden's half-brother DID give George W. Bush $50,000 for Arbusto. He also DID die in a plane crash in Texas in the 80s.

[Sandy Underpants]

All conspiracy theories aside, what are the damn odds that the immediate family of the president of the united states would have direct ties to the immediate family of the man responsible for the attack on 9/11 during his presidency? Seems like a 1 in 6,000,000,000 coincidence which makes it extremely newsworthy, yet never covered by an American news agency.