Shouldn't the candidate who gets the most votes be the winner?

True, if the delegates would of given their votes to her on the states she won instead of given them to Obama she would be way ahead of him in both counts. But even in the states she won the delegates gave Obama their vote why do you think that was? Seems awful funny to me. They say Hillary is running a dirty campaign. She did win in the big states!

Can you please tell me exactly which states Hillary is going to count in the popular vote? Because I guarantee that the popular vote does NOT count most of the caucuses (some don't even keep track of popular vote on a state-wide level), except for New Mexico.

So Hillary's argument is basically "count all primaries, including ones where the voters were told their votes wouldn't count for anything, and I have the most votes. Don't count any caucuses, though; those aren't elections."

People living in caucus states "don't count."

This is what delegates are for. It accounts for the caucus states and proportionalizes their votes to the size of their populations to match that of the primaries states.

And that's why delegates decide the primaries rather than popular vote. Primaries and caucuses are apples and oranges if you add them together.

FYI: Hillary's method of counting the Popular vote does not count all votes. She does not count the Iowa caucus, Washington (state) caucus, Texas caucus or Nevada caucus. Trust me, people voted in those caucuses.

Obama may have the lead when all is said and no matter who you ask. If you include all votes (caucuses are estimated) Hillary IS ahead by about 50,000 votes, and that could change.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi...

In short, the popular vote could still be won by either candidate. I am torn over saying that the popular vote is more important than delegates, but in the General election, we all know that the constitution says that who ever has the majority of electoral votes should win.

Prior to the DNC Primaries and Caucasus the rules are the delegates count; not popular vote. In any case the popular vote still remains in Obama's column not Hillary. Caucasus, haven't provide the population of their constituents and if they did, Hillary still would be losing!

Hillary is the most likely to win in the general but if the dnc does what they have done the past two times they'll nominate Obama and lose 3 in a row.

If we shop the electoral college, it would be by utilising district. The politicians declare that the winner take all gadget supplies the states extra means. in spite of the incontrovertible fact that it in basic terms takes the means from the persons and delivers it to the states political leaders. while this is a waste of time to vote for the President, there's a concern.

Don't be a Hillaclone you can't change the rules when they benefit you or your cause. Popularity does not get you the nom. delegates do, if Hillary Clinton wanted to run on popularity why didn't she lobby to change it before now, WHY because like Fr. Pflager said she thought this was in the bag.

Leave it to the Democrats to come up with a nomination process that's as out of touch as thier political views...

We know that in the general election... The electoral college votes for the President... It was put in the constitution by George Washington... What a great vision he had... He saw Al Gore on the horizon way back then...

I'll put it very simply. Go ahead and count Florida, since both were on the ballot. Barack Obama is winning the contested popular vote. Soemone said something about the emasure of democracy, well there you go. In states in which both candidates were on the ballot, Barack Obama leads the voting.

No. Stop trying to cheat. All the candidates agreed that whoever has the most pledged delegates wins. Hillary and her supporters are always trying to change the rules in the middle of the games.