Here we are:

METHODS FOR DETERMINING THE "POPULAR VOTE."

1. Seated delegate count. This is only truly legitimate means of tabulating the "popular vote." The bizarre rules of the current election were agreed to as a compromise because it gives small states and strong democratic constituencies a fair voice and mitigates the impact of comparing caucuses to open primaries, the seated delegate count is the ONLY FAIR, ACCURATE AND METHODOLOGICALLY REASONABLE representation of the so-called "popular vote." This method gives a significant advantage to Barak Obama, as he can claim he's already won the popular vote using this method.

2. Adding apples and Oranges: raw vote tally or just count all the votes. While this is methodologically pure voodoo, we aren't in a math class, we're in politics, and we know where math and science get placed in the realm of politics: In the corner. With the dunce hat. What matters in politics is: will it appear valid to the public?
Potential positives:
--Allows HRC to stay in the race with the greatest chance of legitimacy.
Negatives:
--Could be seen as dishonest because of it's methodological invalidity.
--Disenfranchises small states. The current system of proportional representation is a compromise written right into our constitution. People in small states may feel disenfranchised.
--Disenfranchises Caucus states. If they had been given fair primaries, states with caucuses MIGHT have gone for HRC or they MIGHT have yielded bigger raw totals for Obama. Both camps will feel disenfranchised. Without a whole new election there is no valid way of determining this.
--Disenfranchises states with closed primaries. States with open primaries will receive a stronger say in this "popular vote."
--Disproportionately favors large states with open primaries.

3. PROPORTIONAL METHODS: any method that tries to determine the "popular vote" scaling the votes and weighing them proportionately.
3A. proportional by size of state: percentage of vote won multiplied by the total population (or total voting population or total registered democrats.) This would be slightly more fair that just counting the total raw votes as done above. However it's still pure voodoo. My feeling is that this method would benefit Obama as it would bolster the voices of his caucus states.

3B. Proportional by importance of state. Erm, this method would rate states on their "importance" in some way and then weigh their votes proportionally. For example, only counting large blue states and giving only half votes to caucus states or red states. Erm this part is pure balderdash but to me, it's about as valid as the rough vote tally number 2.

The place for the popular vote. OR Bush V Gore

"Surely," you exclaim, "the supers should consider the 'popular vote' in one form or another?"

Yes, in homogeneous elections where all the states play by the same rules, it is reasonable to assume that the total raw votes represents the "popular vote" and I think it should be taken into consideration. For example, in the presidential election. Or in other words, at the very least, I would expect a president who won the electoral college vote but lost the popular vote not to govern as though he had a "man date."

Well, we know how that worked out.

Then, WTF?

My point is this:

There's no even remotely valid way to determine the "popular vote" on the basis of the current election other than the seated delegate count. Barack Obama has already won the seated delegate count. HRC may still be able to win the majority of supers but her path to victory does not follow the road of wining the "popular vote."

disclosure: I voted for and am quite fond of Senator Obama because I see his job experience as better qualifying him that Senator Clinton's. However I think Senator Clinton is a super lady and would burn my breeches to vote for her in a heartbeat.