missing text image: sites/all/themes/obs_2007/img/reply.gif
Anonymous (not verified) says:
Did you include the Texas caucus results? An estimated 1.1 million people took the time to vote in the Texas caucuses. That's how many people voted in all of NJ. Unlike FL and MI voters, these voters were told their votes would count. It's hard to imagine the Obama camp letting the Clinton camp claim that caucus-goers in Texas were just wasting their time, but FL and MI voters were not.
To avoid giving two votes to people in Texas, the Texas popular vote should be weighted by delegates assigned to the primary and caucus portions:
This is consistent with what Texans were told: a primary vote carries more weight than a caucus vote, but for your vote to fully count you need to participate in both.
Did you include the Texas caucus results? An estimated 1.1 million people took the time to vote in the Texas caucuses. That's how many people voted in all of NJ. Unlike FL and MI voters, these voters were told their votes would count. It's hard to imagine the Obama camp letting the Clinton camp claim that caucus-goers in Texas were just wasting their time, but FL and MI voters were not.
To avoid giving two votes to people in Texas, the Texas popular vote should be weighted by delegates assigned to the primary and caucus portions:
1 Vote = (126/193)*Primary_vote + (67/193)*Caucus_vote
This is consistent with what Texans were told: a primary vote carries more weight than a caucus vote, but for your vote to fully count you need to participate in both.