There are more ways to count the popular vote (by my count, 972) than there are to eat a Whopper. And now you can pick your favorite.
Note: I had originally used 200,000 as my estimate for Washington caucus turnout, which is a fairly widely reported figure. However, the Washington State Democrats estimate that "more than 250,000" persons participated in their caucus, so I am now using 250,000 instead.
The spreadsheet lets you make seven different choices about how to count the popular vote:
1. Count Florida fully, at 50 percent, or not at all.
2. Count Michigan fully, at 50 percent, or not at all.
3. Don't count the Michigan uncommitteds, or count them for Obama, or allocate the Michigan uncommitteds based on the exit poll results, or allocate ALL Michigan votes based on the exit poll results (this distinction is important because roughly 20 percent of Clinton voters said they actually preferred another candidate).
4. Count Puerto Rico and other territories, or just the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
5. Count the Texas caucuses, or don't count them, or count both the Texas caucus and the Texas primary at 50 percent.
6. Count the advisory primaries in Nebraska, Washington and Idaho or not.
7. Count the estimated caucus votes in Washington, Maine, Iowa and Nevada, or only count caucuses with "hard" voting totals, or don't count caucuses at all.
EDIT: If you want to use the original, hard-copy XLS version, that link can be found here.
6.01.2008
Popular Vote Scenario Tester, Online Version [UPDATED]
@ 8:27 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
58 comments
I think if you make that a google spreadsheet, you can have it work live on your site.
So really, what this is saying, is that any candidate can spin the facts by not counting any primaries or caucuses that he or she doesn't think are important. So when Hillary says that she won the popular vote, she is probably excluding Texas' caucuses, including the full delegation for Michigan and Florida, and not counting the caucus states. I wonder out the 972 ways to count the popular vote, I wonder how many of them favor each candidate.
LOL. Poblano, you are BRILLIANT to do this.
Here is my favorite way to count the popular vote. (By favorite I don't mean that I think it's fair, but that it's one that includes Hillary's crazy metrics while still being somewhat sane)
-Count Florida
-Count Puerto Rico and the territories
-Estimate the Caucuses
-Count Michigan. BUT also count the 237,000 who voted Uncommitted and the 30,000 who wrote their candidates' name in as 2/3 Obama supporters.
Voila. After Montana and South Dakota vote, Obama will lead by about 30,000 votes using this metric. Using a SANE metric he leads by more than 400,000.
This is very interesting. I think it is a political mistake for Clinton to argue so adamantly that she wins the popular vote (also not true under most reasonable scenarios). It has the effect of pissing off Obama supporters, who are people she would need to have a chance in 2012 or 2016. Even when she backs Obama strongly in the next week, I think a lot of Obama supporters won't forget her exagerations/overstatements when her next chance comes.
Cool, but the 50/50 weight for the Texas caucus and primary seems arbitrary. It would make more sense to use the delegate weighting assigned by the Texas Democrats:
Primary: (126/193) = 65.3%
Caucus: (67/193) = 34.7%
This is how the voters in Texas were told their votes would be weighted, so it would seem to be the most reasonable way to respect both contests without double-counting.
This site is utterly fab and extremely informative. I'm from the UK so the nuances of US elections aren't always completely obvious to me, so please bear with me if my questions are ludicrous.
1) Why argue the popular vote when it's not only just not how either major party elects its candidates but also not how you elect a president?
2) Is there any political will to move from the Electoral College to the popular vote in presidential elections?
anonymous@18:07, if her concern is 2012 then she has to first ensure that Obama loses to McCain. Even after all her sabotage, the GE is at best a draw right now. This has necessitated a continuation of fostering white and female resentment against Obama, but doing it in such a way as to retain plausible deniability ("I was just making a historical statement") and exploit the good spirit of Democrats who don't want to think the Clintons capable of placing themselves above the party.
It has worked. Very few people are seeing past her facade, and even fewer are revealing it. Many Obama supporters, even the high-info ones on blogs, refuse to even entertain the notion that Clinton is engaging in sabotage.
Obama, his surrogates and the party leaders are allowing Clinton free reign to kamikaze the GE in the hope that she'll stop and endorse after 6/3. John Cole used the perfect analogy when he called it a hostage crisis. But her time is running out. Before long, her poisonous strategy will become too transparent and then she really will be destroying her future. That's why I remain confident she'll drop out in the next week or two.
@Leila
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
wow the great thing about the internet is ya think of something and boom there it is.
if only it had check boxes instead of fields to type into and if only it was wide enough to actually SEE. (that goes for this page too which appears in a non scrollable popup window that is real small for some reason)
it seems to me that if you do anything fair, obama wins the popular vote by LOTS, not that the popular vote matters in a contest for delegates. the rules are the rules, hillary, and you can't just change them um, every 5 minutes. this isn't the GOP here.
Mr. Silver,
Is there any way of making it such that one can use the WA, NE and ID primaries INSTEAD of the caucuses? Counting the votes of those that went to caucus and primaries double-counts folks that are over-represented as it is due to the iniquities of primaries.
Leila, if they used the electoral college vote in the Democratic Primaries, Clinton would be winning about 300-240 (and still winning if you threw out Florida and Michigan).
Also, unlike British leadership races, Americans are more inclined to see the primaries as a bigger democratic process, rather than a party function. In particular, a lot of people (esp. in the Democratic party) are sore over Gore's loss in 2000, despite winning the popular vote.
The Democratic insistence on QUASI-proportional rules (caucuses betray the principles of proportional representation and some districts are valued more than others - a factor that has benefited Obama) is probably a bad thing for what should be a partisan leadership race aimed at selecting the strongest nominee. Why?
1. Proportionality prolongs presidential races in a way that winner-take-all rules do not (if you can end the race early you don't have to quibble about the popular vote).
2. Proportionality requires arcane rules that both camps will quibble about.
I also think staggered primaries are yet another factor that induces irrationality into the process. For instance, there was much talk of Obama's "momentum" after Super Tuesday, and then Clinton's, when both were essentially winning the states that you would expect, based on demographics. Would Obama have been "inevitable" if the first three primaries after Super Tuesday were Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico?
This also makes some states more important than others, which benefits certain special interests over general interests (eg. the ethanol lobby). In a simultaneous national primary you would have to address the lobbies you are paying off, as well as the folks you are screwing in order to pay off those interests.
Finally, 1968 gave Americans an irrational fear of contested conventions. They are not a bad thing - just move the convention and primaries earlier, to give more time before the general election. Contested conventions mean deal-making and horse-trading, encouraging a united party.
Vosh, Clinton has barely mentioned Obama in the past two weeks (apart from the RFK comments, which hardly helped her). If Obama really is a great uniter and saviour of mankind, why can't he unite his party? Secretary of Health and Human services (which he is rumoured to be offering) is a piss-poor offering to the woman who owns his balls right now.
I am a fractal,
no, actually you misunderstand the rules, and the reason for the popular vote argument. Yes, delegates matter, but 800 are super-delegates, which can decide by whatever metric they want. Typically they weigh two considerations - what is the will of the party, and who can win in November. The popular vote argument is about swaying super-delegates, and if you sway super-delegates, then you have the delegates. Simply looking at pledged delegates is problematic because 1. caucuses are unrepresentative, and 2. delegate results in primaries were skewed to Obama because he did better in traditionally democratic congressional districts, which were weighted more heavily (generally heavily African American congressional districts in cities).
Democrats overwhelmingly prefer the popular vote as that metric (go to pollingreport.com, there are some polls on the subject featured there), or "choose the best candidate" metrics (eg. winnability). So it is an argument with more legs than you give it. Of course the aim of the Clinton camp is to say that it is so close that either candidate has a legitimate claim to the nomination - thus, super-delegates should take a look at which candidate is most likely to win.
*(and there is a sane scenario where Clinton wins - uncommitted to Obama, keep Florida, keep caucuses, but replace WA, NE and ID caucuses with the primaries where MORE people voted and an actual tally was made).
Count the Texas caucus? Give me a break. Who other than this site is even talking about this? You do realize that only people who voted in the Texas primary earlier in the day could vote in the caucus. You are double-counting people by counting the caucus separately. But you apparently want to throw any insane options in to cast doubt on the validity of the popular vote, right? Katherine Harris would be proud. All those Jewish ladies must have intended to vote for Pat Buchanan.
I should clarify - I still want to include Maine, Nevada, and all the caucuses, except those where advisory primaries were held (ID, WA, NE).
I think this is the fairest way to go about it. Florida and Michigan count - their delegates were seated (uncommitted went to Obama, so fine, you can give Obama the uncommitted). Caucuses should count too, but not when there was a primary (since primaries are more represented, although it would be silly to count people twice). That applies to Texas as well.
Without using the advisory caucuses, Obama leads by 28,247. Tossing them in...
Obama won the Idaho caucus almost 80-17 getting a margin of 13,200. In the primary it was 56-38, with a margin of 8,000.
Jay Cost's popular vote calculator reduces Obama's margin by 50,000 when the WA primary is used.
In Nebraska Obama won the caucus by 14,000 but the primary by only 2,600.
All told Clinton nets 67,000 votes using this alternate calculation, passing Obama by 40,000. Obama will need better than 14 point wins in SD and Montana to pass that - doable, but not in the bank yet (of course they are so close this is rather arbitrary).
It is estimated that approximately a million voters took the time to participate in the Texas caucuses because they were told their votes would count. Try telling them that they wasted their time because of a retroactive rule change.
The voters in Texas were told that the primary counted for about 2/3 of a vote, and a caucus counted for about 1/3 of a vote. That's the way they chose to set up their system. Voters were free to change their minds in the caucus and vote for someone other than who they voted for in the primary.
The voters were told the Texas caucus would count, and it should. On the other hand, voters in Michigan were told (by Clinton) that their votes would not count. How can you justify counting the Michigan votes but not the Texas caucus votes? You can't.
As for WA, ID, and NE, it's ridiculous to count contests that the voters were told were mere beauty contests. It's as if we woke up to find out that a straw poll on CNN's web site yesterday was going to be retroactively used to decide the nominee. Surprise!
hosertohoosier,
Clinton has been delegitimizing Obama to her supporters by comparing the sanctions against Florida and Michigan - sanctions she supported - to women's suffrage, civil rights, slavery, Zimbabwe, Florida 2000, etc. She has tried to cast herself as Al Gore and Obama as Bush or Mugabe. Now she is falsely claiming the DNC "stole votes" from her and gave them to Obama. She's been claiming a popular vote lead even when it necessitated discounting caucuses and is now claiming it based upon giving Obama nothing from Michigan.
These arguments are not remotely credible to super delegates. They respect the rules and know that Clinton supported them until she needed them to be changed retroactively. Harold Ickes even admitted this when he recently said, in addressing the campaign's reversal, "What has changed is that now we are behind."
When Clinton attacks the rules and compares them, and thereby those who honor them, to mass human rights violations, she is only alienating super delegates. The Washington Post reported on this alienation, and NY Governor David Paterson, a Clinton supporter, spoke out against Clinton's divisive language.
You can rightly say we can't read her mind but it's absurd to say she has stopped attacking Obama simply because she's stopping attacked him specifically by name. She's been overtly, agressively attacking his victory and the means by which he's achieved it. This is far worse than just attacking him on issues. It's clearly counter-productive unless you consider an intention to discourage her supporters from voting for Obama against McCain.
Even if you contest the notion that Obama's delegate lead was unassailable in February or March, there's no question that it is now and has been for weeks, regardless of how FL and MI are resolved. Clinton has not been speaking to super delegates - the NY Times reports they've long been ignoring her - because they are a lost cause. She's been speaking to her supporters, and the result is the madness we saw on Saturday and the lunacy that can be seen on hate blogs that she supports through her website.
hosertohoosier stated "Simply looking at pledged delegates is problematic because . . . 2. delegate results in primaries were skewed to Obama because he did better in traditionally democratic congressional districts, which were weighted more heavily (generally heavily African American congressional districts in cities)."
I believe this is factually incorrect (or at least it was the last time I looked at it which was after the Super Tuesday results). Traditionally Democratic districts were weighted more heavily for the simple and logical reason that there were and are more democratic voters in these districts. If you compare actual pledged delegate awards vs. allocating pledged delegates proportionally strictly by the statewide results (i.e. ignoring congressional districts), then Obama would have won a few extra delegates. Although I don't like the system of allocating by congressional districts, it really had no significant effect upon actual delegate allocation.
"I think this is the fairest way to go about it. Florida and Michigan count - their delegates were seated (uncommitted went to Obama, so fine, you can give Obama the uncommitted)."
As Chuck Todd reported and the Michigan Democratic Party and the RBD made clear on Saturday, the Joseph Stalin primary in Michigan was not and is not recognized by the DNC. The MDP factored in the 30,000 write-in votes, the exit poll data showing a much closer race with all candidates on the ballot, and the low turnout to come up with the 69-59 allocation. This is a clear refutation of the Jan. 15 straw poll. Of course, that can't and won't stop some people from counting it, but they have no basis for counting it due to the RBC's acceptance of the MDP's proposal.
"I believe this is factually incorrect (or at least it was the last time I looked at it which was after the Super Tuesday results). Traditionally Democratic districts were weighted more heavily for the simple and logical reason that there were and are more democratic voters in these districts. If you compare actual pledged delegate awards vs. allocating pledged delegates proportionally strictly by the statewide results (i.e. ignoring congressional districts), then Obama would have won a few extra delegates. Although I don't like the system of allocating by congressional districts, it really had no significant effect upon actual delegate allocation."
A clear example of this is Alabama. Obama only won a couple delegates in spite of winning the state by 14% and in spite of the high African-American population. Nate did an analysis of delegate allocation of the popular vote in primaries back in Feb. and determined that it had hurt Obama. That may well have changed but I doubt by much.
Leila,
1) The nomination is decided by delegates, both pledged and super. Supers can base their vote on anything. However, most supers are very sensitive and reluctant to overturning the will of the electorate. This is where popular vote comes in. Obama claims a moral right to the nomination based on winning the majority of pledged delegates (those delegates elected by the voters). Clinton, however, can claim a moral right to the nomination based only on the certain versions of the popular vote. If Clinton is perceived as behind in both the pledged delegates and popular vote, then many supers will be extremely unlikely to support her, even if they believe she would be the better president or more electable. Many supers simply do not view their role as upsetting the people's choice absent extraordinary circumstances. If Clinton, however, can persuade supers that popular vote is a better measure of moral legitimacy and both have a valid claim to the nomination, then many supers will then look at electability and who they believe will be a better president.
2. There's no realistic path to amending the Constitution to do away with the Electoral College. Many Republicans perceive that they have an electoral advantage using the electoral college instead of the popular vote (althouth whether this is actually true is another question). Also, the electoral college gives small states greater power in electing presidents. These states will oppose an amendment and there are more than enough of them to block it. As previously pointed out however, there is a plan to do an end run around the Electoral College. But, actually abolishing the electoral college is not on the table for the foreseeable future.
Why argue the popular vote when it's not only just not how either major party elects its candidates but also not how you elect a president?
2) Is there any political will to move from the Electoral College to the popular vote in presidential elections?
My scenario includes counting everyone only once:
Count Florida & Michigan 100% (the delegate vote got halved, not the people voting).
Count Michigan uncommitted as apportioned by exit polls (Clinton votes are Clinton votes. I don't agree with the DNC for taking the 4 delegates away from Clinton)
Count Puerto Rico & territories. I think it's dumb for primary voters to not also be general election voters, but no fair discounting their votes after you gave them one.
DON'T Count Texas caucuses. In order to vote in the caucus you HAD to vote in the primary. Counting Texas primaries and caucuses seems like counting voters twice, UNLESS the spreadsheet reflects the comment made upthread - that primaries count 2/3rds and caucuses 1/3rd, and that was told to the voters ahead of time. For now, I just went with what seemed straightforward. Willing to be corrected.
Count advisory primaries (if the voter showed up, then they did)
Count the caucus vote estimates - certified by states that's an objective number, even if it's not a real person.
My result: Obama +17049.
Can we send this handy dandy tool to the superdelegates? AND, can we crosspost on HuffPost?
Obama Project: Yours is probably the fairest scenario out of those proposed in the comments, but you ARE allowing for some votes to be counted twice if you include the advisory primaries (there was nothing stopping someone from voting in both the caucus and the primary). Those votes should be excluded. Also, I'm reluctant to use the exit polls to determine the allocation of Michigan's uncommitted voters. Probably best to just give Obama all the uncommitteds to offset the advantage of Clinton or not count Michigan at all.
What's interesting is how much closer this race was when you look at it from the view of the popular vote. Even under the most extreme pro-Obama scenario (ignore Florida, Michigan and PR, count Texas caucuses fully and ignore advisory primaries), he still only wins 50.9% to 49.1%, about half of his delegate margin of victory. Under your scenario he wins by a mere 0.046%.
@The Obama Project
Counting both the advisory primaries AND caucus vote estimates would count some voters -- such as myself -- twice. I was able to vote in both the WA caucuses (which counted) and the WA primary (which didn't).
And if you count only the primary (which had higher turnout than the caucuses), you'd undoubtedly miss some of the caucus participants, who didn't bother with the primary because they were told it wouldn't count.
To me, the formula that provides the best approximation is to count the votes in only one contest per state. In cases where there were two separate contests, count only the one that actually carried weight in the nominating process, and ignore the other. (TX is a special case, but since caucus participants were a proper subset of primary voters, the TX popular vote count should include only the primary.)
Sadly, with such arcane systems and the differing rules from state to state, it's just impossible to make a sensible, consistent accounting of just how many people have actually voted in the nominating process. The best you can hope for is an approximation, and that's going to be subject to spin, as we've seen.
If there were a clear, undisputed leader in the popular vote totals by every conceivable way of counting, then that leader would be able to make a legitimate appeal to the superdelegates on the basis of popular vote. Since that simply isn't the case, it is more likely that most supers will read the popular vote as essentially a tie. Under the counting scheme most generous to Mrs. Clinton, she leads by less than 1%. Under the scheme most favorable to Mr. Obama, he leads by about 1.8%. Under most sensible schemes, the difference is down in the sub-0.5% realm (usually in favor of Obama). This essentially undermines Mrs. Clinton's claims of a clear popular vote victory.
Actually, I'm amused by Mrs. Clinton's refrain of "Count every vote." She's seems to actually be saying "Count every vote, except those that I personally don't think are legitimate."
To me, it defies all common sense that you could somehow count PR, but ignore WA, IA, NV, and ME.
The "popular vote" as people are tabulating it -on all sides - is essentially a big "frak you" to 13 states in the union, states that held caucuses because the primary race is about delegates and does not even acknowledge a popular vote (thus why four states didn't bother to count it). For this reason alone, above all others, it's a farce to hold up the "popular vote" in any fashion as a genuine reflection of the popular will. It is to tell Kansans their state gets 1/4 the vote of Utah even though their state is bigger, with more Democrats and thus was given 9 more pledged delegates.
It is to tell Minnesotans their state gets 1/4 the vote of Missouri even though they were both allotted 72 delegates.
It is to tell Colorado citizens their state, with 55 delegates, gets less of a vote than Utah. It is to tell Washington citicizens their state, with 78 delegates, gets 1/5 the say of Indiana, a state allotted 72 delegates.
And so on.
As I've said, I loathe caucuses and recognize they are vote suppressors, but that doesn't lead me to accepting this brutal punishment, in the neighborhood of 75-80% disenfranchisement, of the states that held them. They obeyed the rules and all the candidates had ample opportunity to campaign for them.
The reality is that until the Democratic Party adopts a fair system where no voter has any advantage over another, regardless of their state, any attempt to tabulate a popular vote is doomed from the outset.
vosh: Last time I checked, caucuses don't require turnout be lower than primaries. If the voters in CO MN and MO wanted a share of the popular vote equivalent with their populations, they should have suffered through the caucuses and voted. You can't just declare that the people who don't vote should be counted (and even if you did, you'd have no way of determining how they'd vote).
The popular vote is THE genuine reflection of the will of the people who came out to vote. That's the best that can be done without reading the minds of non-voters (and if you think that caucus voters would vote the same way as non-caucus voters I suggest you take a second look at the texas and washington primary results).
"Last time I checked, caucuses don't require turnout be lower than primaries. If the voters in CO MN and MO wanted a share of the popular vote equivalent with their populations, they should have suffered through the caucuses and voted."
A) They were never told the popular vote would even be counted, nor were their state party representatives who decided to hold caucuses. They were told this was a race for delegates.
B) That caucuses don't "require" lower turnout is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that they result in it by severely restricting people's ability to vote. That is why Puerto Rico switched to a primary.
"You can't just declare that the people who don't vote should be counted (and even if you did, you'd have no way of determining how they'd vote)."
I made no such declaration. I said the fact that caucuses suppress the vote renders the "popular vote" unfair and thus invalid.
"The popular vote is THE genuine reflection of the will of the people who came out to vote. That's the best that can be done without reading the minds of non-voters "
First, there is no "THE" when it comes to the "popular vote." As Nate has shown, there are at least 972 possible interpretations. This shows how BS it is.
Second, a reflection of the voters is meaningless without consideration of the election standards in each state that were enforced upon the citizens. This is an example of how "the best that can be done" can be worse than nothing. Disenfranchising 13 states by 80% or so in order to tabulate a "popular vote" is every bit as undemocratic as the voter suppression that is wrought by caucuses, with the added flaw of this being a race for delegates, not votes. Many Obama supporters defend caucuses even though they suppress the vote, and many Clinton and Obama supporters defend some computation of a popular vote even though it suppresses caucus states. From a democratic standpoint, they are all wrong.
"(and if you think that caucus voters would vote the same way as non-caucus voters I suggest you take a second look at the texas and washington primary results)."
I never even indicated such a thought. Obviously we can't know what can only be theoretical. The point is not to discern how people would have voted, but recognize that many didn't because of restrictions in certain states.
If the popular vote is truly about reflecting the popular will, then the wildly varying election standards that led to voter discrimination and suppression can't be ignored.
Texas should be 3/4 primary and 1/4 caucus, and this alone reveals why any and all popular vote metrics are retarded in the Democratic Primary.
The Obama project, you are double-counting the advisory primaries and caucuses. Clinton is ahead if you use the advisory primaries instead of caucuses in the same states (and behind if you use only the caucuses, and if you use both).
You can check out Jay Cost's popular vote program on realclearpolitics for the impact of replacing the WA caucus with the WA primary (and David Leip for the Idaho and Nebraska primary vs. caucus).
Vosh,
If caucuses are legitimate, how is Michigan not legitimate? Both are highly skewed processes that unfairly benefited one candidate or another. Look at the difference between the WA primary and WA caucus - Obama won the caucus 2-1, and the primary by 5 points (with ~700,000 people showing up).
From a mathematician. How did you get 972?
The number of choices you give is 3*3*4*2*3*2*3 which is 1296. Did you only include THREE Michigan options in computing the number of overall options since 3*3*3*2*3*2*3 is 972?
Hosertohoosier,
The caucuses are legitimate because the voters were told they were legitimate, the campaigns agreed they were legitimate, and the candidates were allowed to directly campaign with the voters.
The voters in Michigan were told their primary was not legitimate, the campaigns agreed they were not legitimate, neither candidate was able to present their case to the voters, and both candidates pledged not to participate in the primary (although Clinton violated the pledge.)
Legitimacy is conferred by the pre-established rules, not the number of participants. If the number of participants was the only thing that mattered, we'd elect presidents on American Idol.
The well-informed voters, the "activists" who tend to show up at caucuses, are the same people who are aware that they don't need to waste their time voting in meaningless contests.
The Oregon primary counted, well-informed voters knew this, and Obama won by 18 points.
The Washington caucus counted, well-informed voters knew this, and Obama won by 30+ points.
The Washington primary didn't count, well-informed voters knew this, and voting was most likely dominated by the uninformed.
See Real Clear Politics:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Popular Vote Total Obama +24,524 +0.1%
Obama wins the popular vote. MI primary is not recognised by DNC. Even if you include MI Obama still wins with the uncommmited vote (and IA/NV/ ME/ WA estimates) going to Obama (Even if you give him only 2/3 of the uncommitted vote).
The ONLY scenario in which Clinton can claim the popular vote is if she counts MI, give Obama 0 from MI and ignores 4 states in IA,NV,ME and WA.
to the anonymous two above me: The reason you get 972 instead of 1296 is because the third question (how do you deal with Michigan's uncommitteds) is moot if you don't don't count the Michigan election. So question 2 and 3 combined count for 9 choices total (count MI at 100 with 4 uncommitted choices, count MI at 50 with 4 uncommitted choices, don't count MI) , not 12. 9/12 of 1296 is 972.
There are a lot of problems with using the popular vote as a metric. To believe the popular vote is a valid method, the following would have to happen:
1) All candidates would have to agree that they would have campaigned exactly the same way had the popular vote been used. For example, Obama would have to agree that he would have still gone to Idaho and Kansas instead of California before Super Tuesday.
2) States would have to agree that states with open primaries are more important than those with semi-open primaries, which are in turn more important than states with closed primaries, which are in turn more important than states with caucuses that track the popular vote, which are in turn more important than states that don't track the popular vote.
3) States would have to agree that states that hold their contests later, when turnout is higher due to prolonged media exposure, are more important.
Of course, none of this would ever happen. States have different ways of holding primaries and hold their primaries at different times. The most fair way to balance all of these different contests is to give each state a pre-determined vote share and let the party in that state determine how it want to allocate its share. The rules should be set in advance and agreed to by all candidates. That's exactly how the delegate system works, which is why it is used instead of the popular vote.
Anonymous @ 9:25,
Small point, but Nate's actually got it right with 972. While there are 3 "general Michigan" options and 4 "Michigan uncommitted" options, there are not in fact 12 possible combinations of the two. This is because if you choose "no, don't count Michigan," for the former, then you must choose "no, don't count Michigan uncommitteds for Obama" for the latter (any other option would make no sense). Only if Michigan is counted (at either 50 percent or 100 percent) can the remaining three options re Michigan uncommitteds be in play. So this yields 1 x 1 ("no" and "no"), plus 2 x 4 (each of 50 percent and 100 percent, for each of the four Obama uncommitted options), which is 1 + 8 = 9 (which you're right, is the same number of possibilities as there would be if both Michigan categories contained three options, where each of one category could apply to each of the other).
Math is cool.
Btw, Nate/Poblano, from a long time BP reader, congrats on this fantastic new site. I have begun referring to Chuck Todd as the Peter Gammons of politics. But if the first few months of 538 are any indication, you'll be the Bill James (maybe even the Nate Silver!).
First, what are we debating here? I am not talking about process - of course caucuses are legitimate process-wise. We are discussing what the "true" will of the Democratic party is (and what super-delegates should do).
Concerns over representativeness, I agree, have no bearing over delegate allocation, but they do have a bearing over interpreting the will of the people. But they are surely important as a metric to super-delegates, who can, I should add, work to ameliorate that iniquity.
Simply using the popular vote screws caucus states - although in all four cases, where a primary and caucus was held, the primary was considerably narrower than the caucus. For instance, in Texas, the caucus was held on the same day as the primary - Clinton won the primary by 4 points and lost the caucus by 13.
In terms of representativeness, the flawed Michigan primary did much better. Firstly, it had higher turnout than the caucuses, as a % of Kerry voters. Secondly, if anything, its un-representativeness BENEFITED Obama. Uncommitted got 40% of the vote - polls taken in the run-up to the MI primary showed support for uncommitted ranging from 26%-33%.
In the last poll to include all candidates (in December 2007), Obama was at 20%. Assigning Obama all of the uncommitted votes in one's assessment is more than generous (that exit polls showed an even narrower race than anybody predicted furthers my argument that MI's unrepresentativeness BENEFITED Obama/uncommitted).
Polls taken over how people would vote in a Michigan redo showed Clinton slightly ahead. This was after Obama's post-South Carolina and post-Super Tuesday surge, when Obama had gained 16 points in national polls over his January 15th (when the MI primary took place) support. If Michigan was close (with a slight Clinton edge) in February and March, it is extremely hard to believe that Obama would have won or even come close in January.
From a process perspective, yes, caucuses are fine, but from a representation point of view they are far worse than Michigan. They shouldn't be ignored, but they should not count for much in super-delegate assessments.
vosh:
'A) They were never told the popular vote would even be counted, nor were their state party representatives who decided to hold caucuses. They were told this was a race for delegates.'
So voters didn't think that the person with the most votes would win? I highly doubt that. People expect their electoral system to pick the winner in line with the popular vote. That's why Gore's supporters were so upset in 2000. I don't recall anyone saying 'Oh, too bad, they should have known that this was a race for the electoral college votes.'
'B) That caucuses don't "require" lower turnout is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that they result in it by severely restricting people's ability to vote. That is why Puerto Rico switched to a primary.'
That is a great argument to get rid of caucuses. Unfortunately, caucuses were held this year. You either accept that they are a legitimate expression of the people's will or you don't (if not, you just fully disenfranchised all caucus states and gave Clinton the pledged delegate lead). If you do accept them, then the people who voted get counted and the people who didn't don't get counted. There's no other way to do things.
'"You can't just declare that the people who don't vote should be counted (and even if you did, you'd have no way of determining how they'd vote)."
I made no such declaration. I said the fact that caucuses suppress the vote renders the "popular vote" unfair and thus invalid.'
The only reason you feel the popular vote is unfair to caucus states is because turnout was lower there. This is only unfair if the people who didn't come out to vote in caucus states deserve to have their non-votes counted. So yes, you were saying that they deserve a to be counted, even if you weren't explicit about it. If you have another argument that doesn' involve turnout, please give it.
'First, there is no "THE" when it comes to the "popular vote." As Nate has shown, there are at least 972 possible interpretations. This shows how BS it is.'
The only reason there is more than one way to calculate the popular vote is because the DNC and state parties screwed up massively with this election: rejecting FL and MI and then reinstating them with 50% (do we count people at 50% or only delegates? do we count them at all? ), holding straw primaries with official caucuses (can we count those?), holding mixed primaries and caucuses where people vote twice (do you hold to one man one vote?), etc, etc. In any normal election there is exactly one way to calculate the popular vote (see the 2000 election for instance). This isn't a problem with the popular vote, it's a problem with the DNC being unable to coordinate a national election.
You are 100% right about caucuses being the wrong way to hold an election. But seeing as caucuses make up the difference in pledged delegates between the candidates, there is no fair way to get rid of them in this election. They are the best way to determine the will of the people in that state. So they have to be taken as legitimate. And if they are, there is no sense claiming 'disenfranchisement'. People who don't show up to vote are not disenfranchised, they are just not taking advantage of their right to vote. And if the system doesn't make it easy to vote, then you change the system. You don't claim that the system works for delegates but not for the popular vote.
The popular vote is still as simple as: each person who voted gets counted once and only once, whoever gets the most votes wins. There is nothing more simple or more democratic than that. The only thing this election told us about the popular vote is that politicians have the ability to take this simple concept and complicate it to the point where there are 972 ways to compute it.
I just realized I could use exit poll data to demonstrate that Obama's core groups were over-represented in the MI vote.
23% of voters were black. Now in 2004 and 2000 MI was a caucus, so I don't have primary exit polls. However, I do have the exit poll from the general. 11% of voters there were African American, 88% went for Kerry. Since Kerry got 51% overall in MI, one can infer 19% of his support was among African Americans.
What about old people, one of Clinton's core groups? 15% of 2008 MI primary voters were >65, the exact proportion >65'ers took in Kerry's 2004 bid.
Hosertohoosier,
If we're going to try to judge the "will of the people", and we're considering polls, then we have to consider that every national poll shows Obama leading Clinton among primary voters. The will of the people is clear.
I'm not sure which Michigan polls you're looking at, but a poll taken shortly after Clinton's victory in Ohio showed the race tied, 41-41:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/election_2008_michigan_democratic_presidential_primary
And that's before Obama even set foot in the state.
This is consistent with what we've seen everywhere else: Obama underperforms in non-binding contests and in states in which he has not campaigned. If the contest in January had been binding, he would have campaigned in the state and the end result probably would have been closer to Poblano's demographic analysis: about an 80,000 vote win for Obama.
One thing that is abundantly clear from reading all these posts is that using any metric to count the popular vote is deeply flawed.
There is no real way to count the popular vote and it is dishonest, disingenuous and dishonorable to say otherwise.
Regarding the question of primaries versus caucuses, a caucus is a fair way to pick a candidate. Each state’s party has a right to pick a candidate by any way they want. That is democracy. If a state wants to choose a candidate by having a combination of a hotdog eating contest and dart contest, then that is the parties’ right, but it is agreed that you will not get the best candidate. However, the goal of a caucus is to get the best candidate and there are states that think the best way to get a “Democratic Party” candidate is to hold a caucus. Caucus states want people who are deeply passionate about a candidate to debate each other to pick the candidate of their state. That is their right.
Corrections are needed to the spreadsheet.
Democrats Abroad are not people like in Guam or Puerto Rico, who have no right to vote in the general election. They are US citizens with full voting rights, who happen to live abroad, and who the Democratic Party gave them rights to vote in the primary (because voting from abroad is a PITA enough, without making it less useful because it is a primary).
Other nits: the turnout in Washington caucus was 244,458 according to the Seattle Post Intelligencer. AP reports pegged Iowa's turnout as a bit lower than the spreadsheet (220,588 vs. 236,00 in the spreadsheet).
Big nits:
I don't know where you got 750,000 for the Texas caucus. I could only find one report from a Dallas news organization that guessed 1,100,000.
Double Counting:
Since the Texas delegates are explicitly picked using potential double voting on a 2 to 1 ratio, then I suggest counting the Texas Primary as 2/3 of a vote, and the Texas caucus as 1/3 of a vote.
Now for the creative bullshit (spreadshit in industry lingo): Since Hillary doesn't mind redefining things to whatever suits her momentary numbers, I suggest
1) Counting all votes, no matter for what (including advisory primaries).
2) Giving her her no votes for Obama/Edwards/Richardson in Michigan crap because....
3) Give Obama a huge percent of Edwards million plus votes, and Richardson/Dodd's 150,000 votes because they all endorsed Obama.
Even if you were generous and split that 50% for Obama, 25% for Clinton and 25% for the original candidate because the voters don't like the big 2, that still gives Obama a half million vote lead.
How about this?
Add up the caucus states (and estimates) separately from primary states. Then apply an adjustable primary vote/caucus vote factor before adding them up.
It makes no real sense to add caucus votes directly to primary votes - they just aren't the same thing.
In the context of this nomination cycle, not only is any attempt to measure "popular vote" flawed, the term itself has no meaning. For a term to be defined there must be a general consensus as to what it means. Not only that, if we are attempting to measure it, there must be a reasonable operational definition of the term.
But there is no such consensus and no such operational defintion. Every party to this debate attempts to impose its own defintion and its own operational measures. What we have is the equivalent of the story of the thower of Babel.
This philosophical quibble, however, is also somewhat irrelvant. What we are witnessing are attempts on the part of the candidates to impose their own perspective by trying to define the vocabulary to be used. Those who wish to end or severely restricty abortion, for example, won the verbal battle by successfully claiming the label, "Right to Life."
awesome. what about an Operation Chaos/Republican Mischief vote calculation, where available. Example, subtracting out the Clinton and Obama voters who said on exit polls they planned to vote for McCain in the General? (E.G. 18% of the electorate in Indiana's primary, the subset in which 88% voted for Clinton)
--Dave
As for my other representativeness argument - look at Ohio.
Clinton got 55% of the two-candidate vote, Obama got 45. If Ohio were perfectly proportional, the delegates would have gone 78-63, instead of 75-66.
In Pennsylvania they would have gone 87-71 instead of 85-73.
In Georgia it would have been 59-28 rather than 61-26.
There was a 3 delegate swing out of Illinois in Obama's favour.
A 3 delegate swing to Clinton in NY.
A 1 delegate swing to Obama in North Carolina.
1 del swing to Clinton in MA.
1 del swing to Obama in WI.
1 del swing to Obama in MD.
1 del swing to Obama in PR.
2 del swing to Clinton in KY.
2 del swing to Obama in NV.
1 del swing to Clinton in CO.
1 del swing to Obama in Kansas
1 del swing to Obama in SC.
1 del swing to Clinton in IN.
1 del swing to Obama in CT.
1 del swing to Obama in Maine.
1 del swing to Clinton in AR.
1 del swing to Clinton in TN.
Net result: swing of ten to Clinton, minus swing of 20 to Obama. Obama gained 10 net delegates more than state-by-state PR would have predicted (I looked at more states than listed above).
Obama gained 28 net delegates more than he would have if the primary results in WA, ID and NE were used (instead of the caucus votes).
A 38 delegate swing is a big deal, especially since most of the states involved were part of the February stretch - aiding as they did in the notion of Obama's post-Super Tuesday "inevitability" (alongside the primary calendar) and limiting Clinton's gains from PA, TX and Ohio.
Obama is presently ahead by 113 pledged delegates. If the fairer rules I mentioned had been used in apportioning delegates, Obama's lead among pledged delegates would only be 37.
Anonymous June 2, 2008 10:41 AM wrote: "There is no real way to count the popular vote and it is dishonest, disingenuous and dishonorable to say otherwise."
I think this is correct. And it is the reason why I believe Clinton is making a strategic mistake right now by adamantly saying that she has won the popular vote. It pisses off the Obama supporters and makes her appear "dishonest, disingenuous and dishonorable." I think she is going to have trouble with more educated voters if she gets into another democratic primary in the future. The hugs with Obama later this week (assuming they are forthcoming) won't fully solve it either.
Thanks for the additional information. Adjusting for 2/3 TX Primary 1/3 TX Caucus, and wiping out caucus votes for the three states that had primary advisories as well, I got Clinton 18,619. Reversing that, and not counting the advisory primaries, I get Obama 53,210.
Based on the assertion that the advisories "would not count" of course the Obama number is more fair, unless the states explain that the primaries count for popular vote stats. Anyone know if this is the case?
And, in any event, Nate has clearly and firmly demonstrated just how unreasonable it is to claim the popular vote as a measure of anything, when there were no rules in place at the outset for counting the popular vote.
Hillary's latest ad says
"17 million Americans have voted for Hillary Clinton...more than for any primary candidate in history"
That's not factually correct, because 5 states had more than one election, which she redefines somehow as not voting.
You can argue that the advisory primaries shouldn't count, but her ad isn't making some sort of nuanced argument.
It just boldly says more people voted for her. Which isn't even literally true.
Also there were actually 18+ million votes cast for a ballot with the name Clinton on it during this primary season. The same is true for Obama. And under reasonable predictions (and reasonable estimates of strictly unverifiable vote totals), that number with Obama's name will be slightly higher by tomorrow night than Clinton's. So we can ignore the fact that Uncommitted is not Obama's name in Michigan.
FYI, I didn't and won't be voting for Obama in 2008, but I will sure as hell be glad when Hillary, master liar, has finally said "No Mas" to her campaign farce.
Your premise is mistaken: there is no way to "count" the popular vote as there is during the general election.
One can only estimate it.
The thing to do is to put up estimates that make sense and a framework to interpret them, if any.
The aggregate vote is a combination of things: open/closed, primary/caucus; one prima-caucus, and a two or three non-binding primaries. For some, the aggregate vote is not known/published (IA, WA, NV, ME).
BEST ESTIMATES PROCEDURE:
For my spreadsheet
1. I haven't taken any adjustment for open vs. closed. I didn't find big differences in the turnout figures, but I don't have nearly the database that you do.
2. I did do a caucus-to-primary adjustment. There is smaller turnout in the caucuses than the primaries. To get a reasonable tally, they have to be scaled. The caucuses also tended to have wider margins. I normalized them, with a few exceptions (e.g. D.C. and Hawaii). My adjustment is based on Kerry turnout figures, which is not as good, maybe, as the way you do turnout, based on registered voters, a data set I don't have.
3. The non-binding primaries are ignored as too biased.
4. Using both parts of the primary-caucus could only make sense if one could adjust for "duplicates", people who voted in both. That's too hard to hard to do.
After that, it's Michigan and Florida.
5. Everyone was on the ballot, so I use Florida. I don't scale it up (turnout was way too low to be 'normal'), because the results of the FL election are obviously biased and it would simply magnify it.
6. It's really hard to say that less people voted than actually did, so I use the Clinton figure from Michigan. I don't scale MI for the same reason: magnifying a bias.
7. Add 19,444 for Obama in Michigan due to the 30,000 write-in votes, split according to exit polls for non-Clinton voters.
8. Adjust Obama vote from Michigan as you like using exit polls, but never at zero, which is a nonsense estimate if there ever was one.
As for the territories that do not impact the general election, the question is one of how to display the results, I believe.
I just show these totals separately. The reader/user can decide how important they are.
spreadsheet link via Zoho (not updated for PR yet)
hosertohoosier,
"If caucuses are legitimate, how is Michigan not legitimate? Both are highly skewed processes that unfairly benefited one candidate or another."
I already addressed this to you in another thread. Caucuses are legitimate in the delegate contest because they were an even playing field for all the candidates. All were on the ballot, all were allowed to campaign, all were told it would count. Michigan is not legitimate because none of the above three things were true for its contest. The bipartisan Michigan Democratic Party agrees.
From a "popular vote" standpoint, no national count is legitimate due to the mass inequalities. Closed primaries are not legitimate to add along open primaries. Caucuses are not legitimate to mix with primaries. Non-binding primaries are not legitimate. Michigan is not legitimate. Each of these are more illegitimate than the other. Closed primaries are more legit than caucuses, and caucuses are obviously more legit than straw polls that the candidates and voters were told would not count.
"Look at the difference between the WA primary and WA caucus - Obama won the caucus 2-1, and the primary by 5 points (with ~700,000 people showing up)."
It's patently absurd to count any contest that everyone was told would not count. This is like counting exhibition games. Do you recognize that Obama had a vastly superior organization for the causes in WA? Do you wounder why he didn't use it for the non-binding primary? Think that might've had an impact? Have you done a county-by-county analysis of the turnout to see how consistent it was with Washington's legitimate elections? I have heard that turnout in King County, the largest county and one Obama won by 45 points, had very low turnout. Maybe Clinton supporters are more likely for whatever reason to vote in a contest that doesn't count. Who knows. It doesn't matter, because it doesn't count.
"In the last poll to include all candidates (in December 2007), Obama was at 20%. Assigning Obama all of the uncommitted votes in one's assessment is more than generous (that exit polls showed an even narrower race than anybody predicted furthers my argument that MI's unrepresentativeness BENEFITED Obama/uncommitted)."
This is preposterous. You've now reduced yourself to saying Clinton was hurt by facing uncommitted rather than Obama and Edwards. The exit poll itself flatly contradicts this. Nate demonstrated that the preferences of the voters was: Clinton 46.6%, Obama 38.4%, Edwards 12.9%. 18% of Obama supporters and 30% of Edwards supporters voted for Clinton because their choices weren't on the ballot, but somehow that helped uncommitted. Even Lanny Davis hasn't made this argument.
You're also placing an absurd amount of importance on that 11/30 - 12/03 Michigan poll, ignoring that at that time, Obama was getting beaten badly almost everywhere, including by double-digits in New Hampshire, where he'd been campaigning extensively for months, as opposed to Michigan.
"Polls taken over how people would vote in a Michigan redo showed Clinton slightly ahead."
Source? The only poll I'm aware of is Rasmussen's, which showed a tie even though Obama hadn't campaigned.
hosertohoosier wrote: "Obama gained 28 net delegates more than he would have if the primary results in WA, ID and NE were used (instead of the caucus votes)."
I am a Washington voter. I would have voted (for Obama) in the primary if it were going to be counted. I knew the rules beforehand, so I went to the caucus and didn't waste the stamp on the primary ballot.
It's meaningless to run a contest under one set of rules and then make claims about who the winner would be under a different set of rules. The participants in the contest take the rules into account when making their decisions. Your calculated 38-delegate swing, especially the caucus/primary state part of it, is illusory at best.
"So voters didn't think that the person with the most votes would win? I highly doubt that. People expect their electoral system to pick the winner in line with the popular vote."
Whether they did or not is irrelevant. The point is that the effect of caucuses is to suppress votes, thus no state would hold them if there really was a "popular vote." The very fact that four states didn't bother to count votes proves that there is no popular vote.
"That is a great argument to get rid of caucuses. Unfortunately, caucuses were held this year. You either accept that they are a legitimate expression of the people's will or you don't (if not, you just fully disenfranchised all caucus states and gave Clinton the pledged delegate lead)."
I don't accept them as a legitimate expression of popular will, but under the DNC's nominating rules this was a delegate race. States are assigned fixed delegate totals for this very reason. Turnout is irrelevant. Voting percentage is all the matters according to the delegate race. This is the race Obama and Clinton agreed to. The rules were fair for both sides. Obama won on the merits.
"The only reason you feel the popular vote is unfair to caucus states is because turnout was lower there. This is only unfair if the people who didn't come out to vote in caucus states deserve to have their non-votes counted. So yes, you were saying that they deserve a to be counted, even if you weren't explicit about it. If you have another argument that doesn' involve turnout, please give it."
They deserve to be counted, yes, but they can't be because we can't know the identity nor preference of those who didn't vote in a caucus but would have voted in a primary. Thus, I'm not saying they "should" be counted. I'm saying their exclusion is a reason why a "popular vote" is invalid.
People keep on making the mistake that primaries and caucuses are for the Democratic Party to get a measure of “The Peoples Will” and it is being used here to denigrate caucuses. Primaries and caucuses are actually a mechanism that each state uses to pick who they think will be the best candidate in the general election, nothing more and nothing less.
Look at other the other parties like the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, etc., they don’t have 50 state wide primaries to pick their candidates and I don’t hear an outrage about that is not the peoples will. Each “party” has their own way of selecting a candidate for the general election. The Democratic Party lets each state individually choose the way they want to allocate their delegates. The majority of states think that the best way to select a candidate is through a primary, others think that the best way to select a candidate is through a caucus.
Only people who long ago gave the race to Obama and are now trying to avoid apologizing pretend that tne number of people casting ballots is irrelevant. Clinton's claim has always been ballots cast by a real human being and counted.
1. Caucus estimates are not ballots cast.
2. Turn out in MI and FL doubled turnout from 2004 and 2000, a whole lot of real people voted.
3. RBC voted to seat full delegations - their primary question to MI was "does this reflect voter intent" they seem to think votes matter.
4. Obama deciding to not appear on MI ballot was, like his caucus wins, was the result of a campaign tactic (can't have it both ways but to be fair, you can include this "estimate" from the exit poll).
Given these considerations.
Ballots cast =
-ID, NE, WA Primary totals.
-MI with 75% of uncommitted to Obama
-FL
-PR (Guam and VI for that matter)
Result: Clinton +122718
You can also try eliminating both MI and the Caucuses:
Result: Clinton +117564
Every scenario that uses humans voting goes to Clinton.
For a better analysis of candidate strength, that is what super delegates are suppose to care about, see the link below. This was fun but if you want to win in November, time to stop playing games now.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/05/a_review_of_obamas_voting_coal_iii.html
hosertohoosier,
You seem to be missing the point of why the popular vote, electoral vote etc., is irrelevant to THIS Democratic primary. If any or all of these other metrics were in play, instead of limited to delegate count, all of the candidates would have varied their campaign strategies accordingly, presumably leading to a different outcome. Put another way, the outcome in this election [with regards to popular vote, electoral votes, etc] has no necessary relationship to the outcome of another election where any of these were the preferred metric. Obama may very well have won those too, with a different campaign strategy.
However, I too think it makes more sense to model the primary after the electoral vote. Seems like that would pick the strongest presidential candidate. Maybe in the future...
At the end of the day, these scenarios are just that. Scenarios. Hardcore rules folks agree that Obama won the delegates according to the rules of the DNC. According to the universal rules of voting, Clinton wins since you count every vote certain and add estimates for the unreleased caucuses’ numbers, since those had real votes that can be counted precisely. Unfortunately, you cannot count the uncommitted precisely, and Obama took his name of the ballot anyway. In essence, account for everyone who actually pulled the lever. She won the vote Obama the delegates. If Gore recounted the entire state of FL he could have, would have, maybe have won the Presidency. Nevertheless, he did win the most votes. Votes are votes. No way to mess with them after the fact, they are what they are. There is a name and voters. Delegates and interpretations of the votes will be forever messed with, of course.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,整型論壇,整型論壇,珠海,雷射溶脂,婚紗,網頁設計,水噹噹論壇,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment