Here is the RealPolitics site (reference below) where they do the popular vote count 6 different ways, including 2 versions incorporating Florida's and Michigan's vote:
http://tinyurl.com/2hbf4a ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As re how to "count" the popular vote (from Mark Blumenthal, MSNBC, > 4.10.08): > > If we check the RealClearPolitics tally of the votes cast in the > 41 "official" contests recognized by the Democratic National > Committee that released popular vote counts, Barack Obama currently > leads by 717,086 votes, or a margin of 2.6 percent of the more than > 13 million votes cast. > > That part is easy. Unfortunately, setting aside the run-of-the- mill > counting errors that were on display in Florida in 2000, we confront > several bigger counting issues: > > Four states (Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington) held caucuses but > did not report a head count of the preferences of participants. They > reported only the number of delegates elected to subsequent state > conventions. How do we count the preferences of the voters that > participated? > > RealClearPolitics publishes a count that includes popular vote > estimates for the four caucus states. That count adds roughly > 110,000 votes to Obama's total, presumably imputed from each > candidate's share of the state delegates to the estimated turnout > totals reported for each state (Obama-friendly DailyKos provides > more detail on an estimate that has roughly the same bottom line). > Of course, these estimates are inherently imprecise given the > switching of preferences on the second round of caucus voting. > In Washington, the turnout for the nonbinding primary was more than > double that of the officially recognized caucus that chose the > convention delegates. Using the primary rather than the caucus cuts > Obama's lead by roughly 50,000 votes. > > Which brings us back, of course, to Florida or Michigan, the states > whose primaries have not been recognized as legitimate by the DNC. > Setting aside for a moment the politically charged (and obviously > ironic) question of whether those votes should be counted, consider > the measurement problems in Michigan, where the ballot featured only > Hillary Rodham Clinton and Dennis Kucinich. Jay Cost provides a > concise summary: > > "[We] could (a) give Obama the 'unaffiliated' vote, (b) not give > Obama the 'unaffiliated' vote, or (c) reallocate the vote based upon > whom voters claimed in the exit poll they would support if all > candidates had been on the ballot." > > For now, at least, Obama's popular vote advantage exceeds the margin > of measurement error. He leads on all six counts posted by > RealClearPolitics, including those that include unadjusted votes in > Florida and Michigan. But before we start to ponder where these > counts may end up after all of the contests are complete, we need to > consider a bigger issue, which is less about accuracy than about > what sort of counting is most appropriate. Or, to use the language > of pollsters, the issue is not just about the accuracy of the vote > count, but its validity. > > ** > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@> > wrote: > > > > On Apr 21, 2008, at 8:54 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > She claimed Obama was *way* ahead of Hillary, by > > > 700,000, in the popular primary vote, because, > > > she said, there had only been 1-3 million total > > > votes cast. (In fact it was 26 million, putting > > > him ahead of Hillary by 2.6 percent.) > > > > Um, Judy, you got this totally wrong. I said that he was > > ahead by 1-3 million, not the 700,000 you had claimed. > > > > Here's the exact exchange: > > On Apr 12, 2008, at 7:14 PM, authfriend wrote: > > And she's only behind in the popular vote by around > > 700,000, a very small percentage of the total votes > > cast. > > > > 1-3 mill, Judy. > > > > 1-3 mill *behind,* Judy. Got it now? > > > > Geez, talk about not being able to read. This is > > elementary school stuff. > > > > Sal > > >
