As Michigan's voters may well have their votes stolen from them, we need to

HELP THEM FEEL BETTER ABOUT IT!!!

That's right! Help me convince Michigan voters that their votes should be given to Hillary Clinton, even if they want to vote for Obama!

BECAUSE EVERY VOTE SHOULD COUNT (for Clinton)!!!

And to make it easy, we'll assume that every reasonable person will accept without reservation that it's absolutely OBAMA'S FAULT!!! Because he's a Democrat, and Democrats obviously HATE democracy. (Except for Clinton.)

That's right! I'll grant you that it's 100% Obama's fault!

Now, let's convince Michigan's voters that THEY deserve to be punished for it!

This week in Bizarro Universe, Howard Dean Clinches the "popular vote."

Read the story below!

Super Delegate Bizarro Superman not willing to commit yet!

As we all now know from Alegre and other HRC bloggers' recent conference call, "popular vote" is a key part of HRC's appeal to the Supers.

But the problem is:

The current election, was not intended to render an accurate "popular vote" count, so using the "total raw votes" of the current election to to represent the "popular vote" is methodologically untenable, unfair and disenfranchises voters.

First, the primary was composed of three different kinds of elections, open primaries, closed primaries and caucuses. Adding these unlike terms requires a common denominator or common currency. In our pre-agreed to election system, that's the seated delegates.

Secondly, it's unfair. It penalizes caucus states and small states and disproportionately favors a few large states far beyond their relative population. This is a compromise that's written into the very fabric of our constitution--in the very form of our congressional system. You can't simply add the totals together and call it the "popular vote."

This election was never intended to do that. And it's not fair.

That's why the party agreed in advance on the system of seated delegates to accurately assess "the will of the people." Which is why HRC used to say repeatedly: "what matter is the seated delegates." It's fair.

So if you must calculate the "popular vote" using a different method from the one the party and all the candidates agreed to in advance, let me recommend another common term: "Popular vote quotient."

In the words of the Matrix:

"You must not try to win the "popular vote" you must only try to realize the truth: there is no "popular vote."

As the contest between our beloved Democratic contestants rages on, there are at least a few things we already know about the outcome:

1. Barack Obama will end with a large lead in (what I like to call) "seated delegates."

2. Neither candidate will get enough seated delegates to win outright.

3. Super-delegates will decide the election.

AND I humbly submit for your consideration a fourth factor, which I hope we can agree upon:

4. For the Democratic party to be successful in November, the outcome of the convention must be SEEN AS reflecting: "the will of the people."

For Obama this is a simple matter, he will claim the seated delegate count. For HRC, it will be slightly more difficult.

POPULAR VOTIN'

Which brings us to the "popular vote."

One way for HRC to claim legitimacy will be to claim victory in a peculiar little mathematical abstraction being called the "popular vote."

However, something else I hope we can agree on is this:

The current election, was not intended to render an accurate "popular vote" count, so using the "total votes" of the current election to to represent the "popular vote" is ridiculous and methodologically untenable.

A comparison which weighs open primaries against closed primaries against caucuses is pure nonsense and large states vs small and red states and blues states, is like adding apples and oranges to flag lapel pins and dry elbows.

It requires a common denominator.

The best common denominator, the one this election was built around and agreed to in advance, is the seated delegate count.

The proportional representation system which elected the "seated delegates"  was the agreed upon best method for determining the "popular vote" (will of the people) in the current election.

Whether or not you agree with that methodology is irrelevant. The only way to get a methodologically defensible "popular vote" other than the seated delegate count is to hold a "do-over" election.

In the extended, I'll explore different methods for determining the "popular vote" as well as the case for supers considering the "popular vote."