Fallacy of the Popular Vote - Redux

In one of my first articles here, I talked about the fallacy of the popular vote. Well, the arguement is still being used.

I've mentioned PUMA Joseph Cannon of "Cannonfire" before. He's a PUMA that is also a major critic of the "Cult of the COLB". He also doesn't censor messages on his blog (While I have not had a message of mine deleted, there is evidence he does engage in censorship like many PUMA blogs). Obviously I don't agree with him on 99% of the issues, but he's at least a PUMA I can (sometimes) respect.

Well, he did a post entitled "She could have won", linking to an article at "The Green Papers" with popular vote, delegate counts, and roll call votes from the convention before Sen. Clinton made a motion to have the count suspended and Sen. Obama nominated by acclimation. Mr. Cannon argues that the information shows "Hillary Clinton not only won the popular vote, she could have won on the convention floor. That's why the Obama forces had to forestall a proper roll call vote."

Let's take a look at the information:

The chart at "The Green Papers" shows:

Popular Vote:

Sen. Hillary Clinton - 17,857,400 (48.04%)
Sen. Barack Obama - 17,584,510 (47.31%)
Uncommitted - 293,074 (0.79%)
Richardson, William B. "Bill", III - 104,051 (0.28%)
Kucinich, Dennis J. - 99,962 (0.27%)
Biden, Joseph Robinette "Joe", Jr. - 79,754 (0.21%)
Gravel, Mike - 35,303 (0.09%)
Dodd, Christopher J. "Chris" - 34,663 (0.09%)

This is very much in line with the info from "Real Clear Politics", under the senario of popular vote, no caucus estimates, Michigan counted, Michigan uncommitted (238,168 votes) does NOT go to Sen. Obama.

Sen. Hillary Clinton - 17,822,145 (48.1%)
Sen. Barack Obama - 17,535,458 (47.4%)

Using "The Green Papers" data, adding the "Uncommitted" votes to Sen. Obama results in 17,877,584, a lead of only 20,184 votes.

Remember though, we don't select a nominee by popular vote, we select by delegates. And the data that Joseph Cannon uses from "The Green Papers" doesn't include caucus estimates. So in effect, Mr. Cannon's arguement that Sen. Clinton would have won due to the popular vote ignores the caucus states completely - which means wholesale disinfranchisement of caucus voters as well as the 238,168-293,074 voters in Michigan that didn't vote for Sen. Clinton.

Whatever happened to "every vote counts"?? It seems the PUMA party line is "count every non caucus vote, and screw the caucus states".

Comments

[TDJ]

Stop trying to use logic on these people. It's an exercise in futility.

The real indictment of these dopes is the Republican convention. Not only do they openly mock Hillary and everything she stands for as Rudy did in his speech, but there is a certain glaring omission.

If Obama really did steal the primary as the PUMAs claim, why wouldn't the Republicans be shouting this from the rooftop of their convention? Under PUMA logic, the media doesn't report on this because they are all in the Obama tank. But why wouldn't the Republicans use all the evidence of his "stolen election" to make the case that he shouldn't be President?

Would it make any sense for Republicans not to use this as an issue if any of it were even remotely true? Of course not. But then, nothing the PUMAs continue to hang their hats on makes any sense whatsoever.

[AltHippo]

I have a few thoughts on this:
1.) The "popular vote" can at best be thought of as an estimate. I would even argue that there are more ways of conducting the estimate than the RCP article states. The Green Paper errs in including one method that favors Clinton, without at least pointing out that it's not a definitive estimate.
2.) Why do Cannon and the Green Papers focus on a particular estimate of "popular vote" rather than just looking at the delegate count? It seems to me that the only purpose this serves is to argue that the nominee is illegitimate. And this helps who?
3.) I live in DC. In 2004 DC moved up their primary as a protest against voting rights (we have no Rep or Sen). The DNC imposed the same penalty on DC then, that they imposed on MI and FL this year. Where were all these people to lament over the unfairness of penalizing DC in 2004?

[Pumalicious!]

I gave up on trying to use logic with the dead-enders quite some time ago. The only thing you can really do is mock them for being such a pathetic gaggle of delusional, uneducated, and ignorant fuckwits who voluntarily get yanked around by GOP operatives.

[Scott]

Joseph Cannon often bans people from posting on his blog. Also if he does not like a comment he won't post it. So when you say he does not censor that is not correct. He HATES Obama. It is his right but he is now so over the top I no longer read his Blog. Too bad because he used to have very interesting posts.

[Patrick McKinnion]

TDJ - The current belief is that the GOP will use it as an "October Surprise". Of course, when it doesn't happen, they'll come up with another excuse.

You know, the PUMA sites are going to be fun to look though for the first few days after Obama wins...... :-)

AltHippo - Simple. DC wasn't needed to "count" then.

Scott - Interesting. He hasn't banned me (yet), and I've seen other critical comments there as well. That being said, I agree, he IS over the top - but not has bad as some of the PUMAs

[Abroadsider]

Cannon got on my blogroll when the COLB nonsense was at its peak and he offered a hint of sanity and realism compared to most of the other PUMAs.

Nowadays he's got nothing new or unique to say. I just visit Cannonfire as part of a blog sweep to gauge reaction to what's going on. I may just delete his site from my roll as he's so boringly predictable.

[not a fan of PUMA]

The bottom line, no matter how you look at it, is that it was a very close race, but there HAD to be a winner, and there HAD to be a loser. No matter which way this had cut, a large constituency of people were going to be unhappy.

We haven't had a primary race this close, that went on this long, in my lifetime. Unfortunately, when any side loses, and starts to really examine our voting processes closely as a result, they find a lot of things to complain about.

Our "democracy"-- or more correctly-- our representative republic, is FAR from perfect. Our voting processes in the general elections are often flawed, just think back to 2000 or even 2004. Nevermind in the primaries.

Scary as it may be, for many of these folks it is as if they have only just realized this, and now are losing their minds about it. It is as if the curtain has been pulled away and the great and powerful Oz revealed for what he is. So, they go off to seek a new Oz, and find it in Darragh Murphy and MamaPUMA.

Further, most of these folks have little to no understanding of our government and how it truly works, of how our laws are made and how they apply (this even as to our Constitution-- these folks have NO understanding of their Constitional rights and how THOSE apply) or of our history as a nation.

It is all very sad. Now, as the final ingredient, add the GOP ratf#*kery that is in play here, and, you get PUMA. PUMA gives these folks a sense that they belong, a sense that someone more educated with access to "true" information "knows" what is going on. They can no longer trust their government, so, now they trust PUMA as the new surrogate to replace what they have lost.

PUMA feeds them just enough misinformation to make them dangerous and keep the fire fueled, thus keeping the money coming in. They were actually posting over there at PUMApac last night about the ridiculous Berg lawsuit (which, as far as I knew, was immediately dismissed last week).

PUMA also isolates them from any real truth or facts by painting ALL who don't agree with them as "Obamabots" and attacking them harshly. They do not allow contradictory facts to even enter the disussion, they ban posters who aren't in "the cult" and discourage members from seeking outside verification of facts in any independant manner.

When a PUMA member disagrees with anything, or questions anything, they are first reprimanded harshly and attacked by the group to get them back into the fold. If this is not successful, they are then banned from the group. I any of them exhibit any tendancy to think independently it is immediately shut down and the person is isolated, labeled "other", and removed-- classic cult methodology. Anyone presenting ANY contradictory evidence is immedately vilified, discredited and "exposed" to the group as a threat who is "out to get them". The contradictory facts are therefore never even examined or discussed. This is a classic cult tactic.

They are deluded, and their delusions are fueled by the misinformation they are being fed each and every day on the various PUMA and JSND blogs. These delusions are reinforced withing the group, which makes the misinformation presented seem validated, no matter how far fetched it is. It is all classic cult mentality and cult methodology at this point.

Sad for those involved, especially those donating money to these folks.

[Patrick McKinnion]

not a fan of PUMA - the Berg lawsuit is still going. Reports today are that the DNC and the Obama campaign were served yesterday.

They have until October 21 to respond. Most legal experts that have gone over Berg's claims are of the opinion they'll move to dismiss, and the judge will be likely to grant it. Most of Berg's stuff is cut and paste from "Cult of the COLB" sites and claims, including a whole listing on his website that's 105% TechDude. Plus many judges don't consider "Wikipedia" a legal source.

I've got an update in the works

[Abroadsider]

Success in the lawsuit isn't of any real concern to the ratfuckers, though. Sowing doubt and smears and tying up resources is.

I suspect only the fringe PUMAs seriously believe that this will fly.

[not a fan of PUMA]

Thanks Patrick. I believe it was maybe his motion for an injunction last week that was denied (during the convention). I was under the impression last week that would be the end of it, dare to dream.

Is there a website containing the legal filings up to this point? I'd love to see first hand how ridiculous they are (and, trust me, I have seen some absurd legal papers in my day).

[not a fan of PUMA]

Ok, I found the idiotic Berg site, but still no pleadings, just a press release. Anyway, it apears to me his entire case rests on expert forensic analysis. So, you get 5 experts, I get 10, and we have at arguing. Is this type of forensic analysis even admissible as expert science? Is it an accepted science or is it something rsther new?

[Patrick McKinnion]

not a fan of PUMA - Bear in mind his "expert forensic analysis" are the webpostings of Polarik and TechDude. Case in point:

http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-main/4-forensic-analysis-of-obama-birth-certificate

Properly trained and vetted computer forensic specialists are admissible. The problem Berg has is that, if he wants to use the claims of "TechDude", Polarik", and the like, they have to provide their real names, proof their their training and background, documentation to prove their claims, etc., etc. The court isn't going to accept the word of some nameless internet "expert".

[Patrick McKinnion]

Oh, and this site has a WONDERFUL debunking of Berg's claims

http://www.whatsyourevidence.com/

[not a fan of PUMA]

Ok, first thing, that is a VERY poorly written complaint. Berg should be ashamed of himself, it is sloppy, not well laid out, not well thoght out, conclusory, and man, if I was answering that piece of garbage I would tear it apart.

If indeed this abusrdity EVER makes it to trial (I suspect a motion to dismiss to follow VERY soon) this guy doesn't have a prayer. He will, if nothing else, be outlawyered, as I am SURE the other side will hire more than competent folks. Hell, I'd volunteer to take this guy on and I would do it pro-bono, because it'd be very amusing. Child's play.

[not a fan of PUMA]

Patrick, I do detect a hinto of familiarity in your anaylysis, am I correct in this assumption if I call you Counselor? Hmmm.

Is this site simply crawling with lawyers?

[Abroadsider]

I followed this stroy quite closely, and L.E. Daniel, one of the leading critics of the supposed COLB furore (a GENUINE computer forensics expert whose blog's well worth reading if you're at all a geek) has announced:

"I decided to unpublish two of my posts: The one on the Obama birth certificate issue, since it appears to be of little vaue other than a curiosity. And this is not a political rag. ..."

http://exforensis.blogspot.com/2008/08/little-housekeeping.html

If you use the Google cache, you can see what he wrote (some of the links he gives seem not to work now, but I haven't dug too far recently): http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:gkYDUVpy6pEJ:exforensis.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-fake-birth-certificate-fact-or.html+%22ex+forensis%22+colb&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk

Koyaan, very technically adept if not an actual expert, was also scathing over a prolonged period, especially about the excitable Polarik's contribution to the debate (TexasDarlin's "Techdude" went to ground after grave suspicions arose that he was impersonating a genuine forensic expert): http://koyaan.wordpress.com/

When Berg's case was publicized, I was amazed by the (lack of) quality of the evidence he cited, which had already been disproven to the extent that even No Quarter distanced itself from TexasDarlin! I don't know, but it feels like Berg was doing someone a favour and didn't put much effort in.

I believe that to pursue the case, Texasdarlin and other actors will have to reveal their true identities. It could prove a distraction in October, or a neat easy victory for the Obama camp among whatever other smears are being thrown about at the time.

[Patrick McKinnion]

not a fan of PUMA - *Laugh* Friends with lawyers and paralegals, yes. And I've been told I'd be a good lawyer if I wanted. But no, I'm an IT professional working in education, not a lawyer. :-)

[not a fan of PUMA]

Well sir, I second whomever said you'd make a good lawyer. If you ever want to chat about law school or lawyering off-line, let me know. It's a fun profession for the most part, so long as you can suffer the fools like Berg that give us all a bad name.

[TDJ]

The first line from the latest "Cannonfire" entry:

"This morning, I've deleted a number of messages denouncing the PUMA movement."

Please correct your initial post that this dumbass doesn't censor contrarian comments.

[Patrick McKinnion]

TDJ - Corrected, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

[Jennyjinx]

What are they going to do in November? Are they suddenly going to decry the electoral college because it's not representative of the "popular vote"?

The problem is that we don't live in a true democracy, as these dimwits believe. We live in a representative republic and so elect other people to make our decisions for us. They keep screaming "IT'S A DEMOCRACY!" blah blah blah. When November rolls around and the pundits start talking about the electoral votes as opposed to the "popular vote" PUMAs are going to really lose their minds.

I feel bad for the neophytes who are just being introduced to the American political system. They're getting their education from the wrong people.

[~~Wendy~~]

Sorry not try to ignore your blog...I was just wondering if anyone noticed that someone must have forgot to tell the pumas to "be wonderful to each other" just had to get that out.

[Dmitriy]

That's not fair. It's not just PUMA sites that are being censored. Go to TaylorMarsh.com and unless you an Obamabot chances are your comment won't see the light of day. Or NoQuarter - that's a PUMA site that will not delete your comment even if you are worshiping The Chosen One.

[Christina]

dmitry.. that's strange- i can NEVER post on NoQuarter. MY comments are always scrubbed.

[Patrick McKinnion]

Dmitriy - you must be thinking of another Taylor Marsh or NoQuarter. Because I see daily a LOT of pro-PUMA messages at Taylor Marsh. And I've had messages deleted at the formerly sane No Quarter.

[Abroadsider]

"Joseph Cannon often bans people from posting on his blog. Also if he does not like a comment he won't post it."

Yeah. Sadly, I think I've just experienced that myself with two posts he might not like, Scott (I'm not too bothered, if he read them, they might make him think - if he does publish them, I'll gladly retract what I've just said). He's even owning up to it - http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/ - see under "What She Said": " I let Cheri's comment go through because it was so fetchingly dumb. ...".

My posts he didn't like concerned (1) the deterioration of Cannon's blog (as I mentioned here the other day) and my posting a link to The Atlantic's account of Hillary's dysfunctional primary campaign, and (2) this story today about just how prepared Palin is to be in the White House in any capacity: http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/sarah_palin_fumbles_on_fannie.html

Sure, it's his blog, he gets to call the shots. But he's not running an open house there.

[Abroadsider]

OK, I do retract - he eventually published my two comments. Hats off for that, Joseph.

FWIW, I missed this comment of Joseph's from the earlier post, though:

"I let the anonymour comment about "teleprompters" go through for one reason: I've uh, I've heard, you know, Obama speak, uh, without, uh, you know, a teleprompter. And I uh, I've never uh been all that, uh, impressed."

So yes, as with Cheri above, he does screen, using whatever criteria he sets.