Friday, June 6, 2008

Yes, I believe in Fair Reflection, Do You?

The visual below illustrates the concept of "Fair Reflection". When voters vote in a primary and have all day to vote, and vote in the privacy of a voting booth, the vote totals for that particular state more accurately reflect the will of the popular vote. This is called Fair Reflection.The South Dakota PRIMARY clearly illustrates that when voters have all day to vote, and vote in the privacy of a voting booth, Hillary runs much closer in Barack Obama's strongest region, the Great Plain States. Barack built his delegate lead through caucus voting that dominated the Great Plain States earlier this year.
Above is the ridiculous margin of victory for Barack Obama in the Idaho Caucus that had nothing to do with reality, but much to do with cheating. Certainly mimics the very style of Old School politicking that Barack Obama claims he would "change". Below is the Result of the Idaho Primary, notice how much closer the final results are?
The Primary vote reveals a much closer 56%-37% margin of victory, Barack Obama's ridiculously unrepresentative win from the caucus vote was a 70%-17% margin of victory. Hillary enjoyed a 440% increase in her vote total in the primary vote, Barack Obama had a 140% increase in his primary vote total. The Primary Vote swing is 43% in Hillary's favor.

Up Above is the Nebraska Primary and Caucus Results. After losing in the Nebraska Caucus by a 68% to 32% margin of victory, Hillary Clinton once again closed the gap losing by only two percentage points, 49% to 47% in the Nebraska Primary. The Nebraska primary vote represents a 38% shift in the popularity of both candidates towards Hillary Clinton.

The Washington Primary offers almost an identical shift in numbers as the Nebraska primary. Hillary Clinton once again closed the gap from an unrealistic 68%-31% margin of victory in the Washington Caucus to 51% to 46% in the Washington Primary. The shift in popularity is 32% towards Hillary Clinton. (I recall these numbers used to be 50%-47%, but we'll go with the 51%-46%).

Yes, I believe in Fair Reflection, unfortunately other than a few intellectuals on Hillary Clinton's side, such as Harold Ickies, the phrase Fair Reflection is meaningless to the democratic party higher ups.


Anonymous said...

Thank you for proving two things:

1.) That Obama caucus victories also translated into Obama *PRIMARY* victories, and
2.) "THE" popular vote count that many Clinton supporters refer to includes *CAUCUS* votes that excludes primary votes in dual caucus/primary states and that understates the number of votes cast for Obama and which would have been cast for Obama were the contests decided by primary alone.

The fact that the Obama campaign understood the rules and geared its game-theoretic strategy to winning under those rules you call "cheating".

Even if you wanted to try to make the point that Obama would have gained fewer delegates if the primaries were the method of apportionment most of us would agree with you given these assumptions, but calling it "cheating" is really just a personal distortion that clouds your view from seeing that the Obama campaign was RATIONAL and would optimize its strategy to win under the rules.

There is nothing wrong with that. Its about time we had a truly rational executive.

Anonymous said...

Regrettably, the rational executive is being forced upon those of us who would like to follow this election via a rational, responsible, PROFESSIONAL and ethical press corpse. You cannot deny that the models posing as reporters and abusing the preferential access afforded the Fourth Estate, are interested in ratings. The DNC, whose business it should be to win elections, could just as rationally have taken a few weeks to look at these numbers, concluded that the scheming Obama Gamers took an early lead via caucus strategy but got their clocks cleaned once the vetting process took traction. It was at about that same time that the mantra demanding Super Delegates vote the will of their constituencies was dropped in favor of the shrill, insulting, race/hate driven calls for HRC to withdraw. The hysteria, intemperence and vitriol of those presumptive demands was something your "rational executive" never moved to control. 'Rational' is a flattering way to describe cold- blooded calculation. Change? This is Chicago Thuggery. Nothing new.

A.M. said...

Hillary Clinton is being cheated out of her rightful share of delegates. I believe that to be an indisputable point.

As for the popular vote argument, I gave you three examples that show a MONUMENTAL SHIFT in votes. If Barack Obama has three states were all at least a 2-1 margin of victory for Barack but then show a 30% to 40% drop off in margin of victory in a follow up primary, and these states are among the top ten that voted for Obama, than it is also valid to speculate that the caucus states that went for Barack Obama by less than a 2-1 margin may actually have been won by Hillary Clinton.

Plus, I really like to know how much Republican cross over votes Barack got in the Caucus states, along with pre-printed or pre-written ballots, which as I understand are illegal.

GeekLove said...

Here's my new video for joining Just Say No Deal. It summarizes in Obama's words many of the reasons why we cannot vote for Obama.

NO DEAL: Join The Coalition of Millions

If you post it on your site, PLEASE ask your readers to: RATE the video, post a COMMENT & mark it as a FAVORITE on YouTube, these actions will help further promote the video and perhaps reach a larger audience.

GeekLove at