The problem with the popular vote

A good point on tallying the vote:

With or without participants in the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington (i.e., states where voters’ preferences were expressed by gathering in corners and the like, and whose numbers can be estimated but are not pinpointed), and with the totals for both Florida (whose primary was unsanctioned by the Democratic Party, with the consent of all the candidates, and where no one campaigned) and Michigan (also unsanctioned, and where Obama’s name was not even on the ballot), Clinton’s claim that more people have “voted” for her is factual. But her claim to be “ahead” depends entirely on a tally for the Michigan primary that is distinctly North Korean: Clinton, 328,309; Obama, 0. However, if the bulk of the 238,168 Michiganders who voted “uncommitted” are assumed to have been Obama supporters—a reasonable assumption—then Obama leads by every possible reckoning. And if only Florida is included, then Obama leads whether or not those four caucuses are counted.

And we need to be honest about the process.  The “popular vote” is a meaningless concept when you don’t have an apples to apples means of tallying.  Some places have primaries.  Some places have a caucus.  Some places use a hybrid or mixed system.  All good and fine from the point of choosing a candidate to support, but it means there is no “popular vote” tally that accurately reflects the will of the people.  Nor can there be unless every state does it the same, just as they do in November.

But the Hillary hacks still grasp at any straws they find…