Seeking info: When it's all over, Can the popular vote be determined?

[IsItJustMe]

From my understanding, certain Caucus states do not report the popular vote. If this is the case, when all of the primaries and caucuses are over, will the popular vote be able to be definitively determined?

Are there any other quirks in our system that would hamper a true popular vote from being determined?

This system of ours is fairly complex, to me anyway.


On edit: Does anyone know the states that don't include their popular vote totals? I think Iowa is one of them.

[Spider Jerusalem]

1. No, it can't be determined accurately. It can be ESTIMATED.

But the process is about delegates. Not 'popular vote'.

[IsItJustMe]

3. Ah, you read my mind, some posters here keep talking about the popular vote as a detainment of who

super delegates should go to. In the end though, I don't believe a true popular vote count can be had. I don't understand the process well enough though to state that with certainty.

[TwilightGardener]

2. No. I honestly don't even understand why the popular vote was even brought

up, except as a way to help Hillary--the race is set up for delegates, and that's the end of it.

[IsItJustMe]

4. I guess we can all the the popular vote arguement for what it is. I am of the same mind.

[bain_sidhe]

5. Short answer, no.

The caucus system is inherently undemocratic, in the "one person, one vote" context.

A lot of people point to the delegate apportionment within precincts as the problem, but I think that's probably a wash, really.

Example: Say a precinct has 3 delegates to apportion, and 100 people show up (yeah, low numbers, but it's easier to work with). If 51 of them stand for one candidate, and 49 stand for another, the one with 51 gets two delegates, and the one with 49 gets one. BUT! If 16 stand for one candidate, and 84 stand for the other, the one with 16 still gets one delegate, and the one with 84 still only gets two. So, as I said, probably a wash.

What I think is probably more undemocratic is those caucuses where the number of delegates a precinct gets is determined by how many people voted in the last election. I know Iowa does this, Texas too, I think. I don't know how many other caucus states do, though. But consider this example: In one precinct, a lot of people voted last time, so they get (again, for ease of use) 6 delegates to apportion. In another precinct, hardly anybody voted last time, so they only get 3 delegates to apportion. What if 200 people show up in the second one (with only 3 delegates) and only 100 people show up in the first one? Or even if they have the same turn out this time. The first precinct hands out six delegates with their 100 people, the second hands out only three delegates. The "votes" of the first precinct count for twice as much.

That said, those were the rules going in, and everybody knew them. Hillary should have worked harder in caucus states.

*Ritual disclaimer: I support both our candidates, and I'm not taking sides. I'm just pointing out what IS, whatever either "side" would wish it to be.

[IsItJustMe]

6. Do the caucus states keep a count of the total popular vote, and if so, is that added to the totals

floated around? I see these popular vote totals circulated around, and I am wondering how accurate they are.

[bain_sidhe]

7. Not sure in general

I remember stories during the time of the Iowa caucuses to the effect that they, at least, go to great lengths to keep the actual numbers of bodies in the room secret. But I don't know about other states, nor where those "popular vote totals" we've seen floating around came from.