Democrats now find themselves in the position of having to slog through several more weeks of a contest that should be over. Why? In large measure because the Clintons have been able to play a new game, the metrics game, which includes the national popular vote as a “metric.” The very fact that we are talking about different “metrics” reflects the degree to which the Clinton campaign has managed to set the agenda. The notion of “a collective popular vote” in the nomination process is a myth that simply hasn’t been properly “vetted” by the Media. One has to ask why the Media hasn’t done a better job.
Please check out: “How Would Primaries Have Changed the Results in Caucus States?” by Gregory P. Nini and Glenn Hurowitz . http://www.dcourage.com/Caucus%20Study.pdf
[The latter’s conclusion, “We wish to make three broad points. First, because voter turnout is lower in caucuses, the popular vote dramatically devalues the popular will of citizens of caucus states. Second, the size of the devaluation is large, given that about one-third of states have used caucuses and caucus turnout is only one-fifth of primary turnout. Finally, both the actual caucus results and the results of our hypothetical primaries suggest that were every state to have held primaries, Obama would have a larger lead in the current tally of the popular vote.”]
This, and other blogs/articles like it, should be circulated. The issue should be discussed in the MSM asap.