IF THERE IS ANYTHING WE CAN LEARN FROM THE REPUBLICANS, IT'S THE WINNER-TAKES-ALL SYSTEM.
POST said 05/20, 05:54 AM
Think about it, this proportional representation nonsense has complicated our nomination process. This is one party for Christ's sake. We must be brave enough to give the candidate who carries our state all of the delegates we have.
The candidates are not responsible for the divisions in the party but the system. If it was winner-takes-all, then we would have had a winner already, and probably it would still be Obama looking at his momentum after 1st Super Tuesday, but again Hillary won states with bigger delegations.
That is how Republicans were able to decide on the candidate quicker and now they are busy getting united while we battle it out. Fine Obama is ahead and is getting over the top, but a lot of time and money could have been saved if he'd won earlier.
Tickers said 05/20, 07:25 AM
Not so. The republican nomination process was over so quickly because John McCain had a much broader appeal than Romney and Huckerbee, the problem for the democrats during the primaries is that both candidates appeal to large numbers of people who as overall voting blocs are very similar in size.
Transferring all the delegates to a 'winner take all' system at this point would give an advantage to Clinton (1621 to 1443) so even with the remaining contests she would still need the backing of superdelegates to cross the threshold.
Doing so, however, ignores the basic truth that candidates would have campaigned differently under a different system and so could actually have revealed any number of possible outcomes. Perhaps Clinton crushes Obama on Super Tuesday, or perhaps his greater Iowa momentum turns NH and Nevada to him, racking up more momentum ahead of super tuesday?
Generally though both systems will produce a winner quickly if one candidate is sufficiently more popular than the others, and the basic problem for the democrats is that they have two very popular candidates. As problems go I think there are worse ones for a party to have.
POST said 05/20, 07:51 AM
I disagree. See if you have a benchmark of 2025, and Hillary wins New York (232)and California(370) as is the case, she is a 1/4 of the way to the total with 602 delegates if we are using the Winner-Takes-All system.
Understand me, I'm not suggesting that we change the rules now, I'm happy with Obama as the likely nominee, but I think the rules need a serious review. I don't think candidates would have campaigned any differently, in fact, with the Winner-Takes-All system there probably would have been more aggression, (which I don't support), as the fear of dropping out earlier would have been a reality for many others.
I dont't think its fare to enter a fierce contest and then everyone wins something. Who ever beats the other should take the trophy alone.
Tickers said 05/20, 04:12 PM
If the candidates campaigned in the same manner under a different set of rules then they would be foolish. Focus would go on the tight states and would undermine one of the objectives of the primary process, which is to introduce the candidate to the nation.
A winner take all system gives a heavy advantage to those from larger states because of the delegate count. Come from California and you are almost 20% of the way to the nomination without leaving your own state!
The proportional representation system is also what enabled Bill Clinton to be elected in 1992, as it was a second place finish in New Hampshire that enabled him to remain in the race as the comeback kid, something that would be hard to do if he had won zero delegates.
Your final comment on everyone winning something seems to be missing the actual prize. The prize in this process is not the delegates but the place as the democratic nominee. The proportional representation system does not prevent someone from winning that prize, and there is nothing for the person who comes second (other than perhaps a slot as VP). In the end Hillary's delegates mean nothing, Obama is the winner and he takes it all.
POST said 05/20, 05:02 PM
They still are representatives at the convention, which means that they still carry a mandate of many people back in their states, so, Hillary delegates may not mean much after the nominee has been agreed upon, but the public will matter during the general elections, and a good size of those are Hillary supporters. That is not my point though.
The fact that previous democratic nominees won with the proportional representation system does not make it right. The negatives about this system clearly surpass the positives.
1. If you have 2 strong candidates, like in this year's race, its difficult to seal the deal early enough.
2. This in turn affects the campaigning for the general election negatively.
3. You go to the general election sharply devided
4. Put the future of the country in the hands of superdelegates, an un-elected, hand picked group of individuals (who in this year's case lean towards Obama because they fit his base demographics anyway, the elite, educated, etc)
I still think giving the loser a big chunk of delegates, sometimes as many as close to the winner's, is a flawed system. it's totally unfair. Winning should mean just that, WINNING.
Tickers said 05/20, 09:23 PM
Your assertion that a winner take all system would deliver a result more quickly is deeply flawed, because of a little thing called the laws of probability.
No matter the system - be it proportional representation, winner take all or based on the national vote - there is always a probability that the result will come down to the final few primaries. It is not a question of if such an event will occur, but when.
If you want a result quicker then the only way to guarantee that is to hold the primaries closer together, but this is not something being done by the republican party.
In conclusion, your argument is fundamentally incorrect.
Comments
Add Your Comment
OK, there is someone clever here after all. You're spot on Small Town, There is more you can learn from Republicans, like running a country.
dirtythoughts | 05/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
POST, are you claiming to be a Democrat now?? Tickers is 100% right in his assessment. I would add that winner-take-all is less fair and representative than proportional allocation. If Obama, for example, were to win by a 20% margin in states that accounted for 49% of the delegates, and Clinton won by 1% in the other 51%, Clinton would win even though approximately 60% of votes were cast in favor of Obama. It is not a fair system. The delegate system is misguided in the first place, as the popular vote is what should determine the nominee. Proportional allocation most closely approximates that result.
DonkeyDude | 05/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
DD I'm an independent, but have my views on both or all parties in the political arena of the US. I'd like to have your support and your vote on this one, but looking at your comment, I have failed once again to convince you. Maybe next time.
POST | 05/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
POST, I like how you further evidence my previous claim that you're a phony conservative. Good idea to change your Ann Coulter icon yet again, as this doesn't help people believe the farce. And you're clearly not very independent, as in referencing the "one" and only Democratic Party, you say, "We must be brave enough to give the candidate who carries our state all of the delegates we have." WE... OUR... WE.... Plus, you seem to grudgingly accept that Obama will be the likely Dem candidate (and we all know you've been a die-hard Hillary fan up till now). Have a nice day! :)
USA Pit Bull 63 | 05/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
Why do you care Puppet? I also think you are Gay, so does that matter? It's none of your business what party I eventually vote for. I am here to debate on any issue and take what ever stand I like. Focus on your *ss licking job. Please disappear, I'm not interested in your views and opinions.
POST | 05/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
You do such a great, graceful job showing that you're not interested in my views and opinions. Keep up the good work! :)
USA Pit Bull 63 | 05/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
The winner take all system is flawed, and undermines even further the spirit of democracy. Does it make sense if someone wins by 1% of the vote, but recieves 100% of the delegates? I think not.
theyoungdem | 05/21/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Photos: The Hajj Goes High-Tech
Advances in infrastructure and security improve the experience of Islam's holiest pilgrimage
( )
Athens in Flames
A massive student protest against proposed government reforms of state universities developed into major rioting in the streets of the Greek capital following the shooting of a teenage boy by riot police.
(Louisa Gouliamaki / AFP / Getty)
Remember Texas and Ohio, Hillary won but the result did nothing to the total tally of delegates. The gap remained the same with Obama slightly ahead.
POST | 05/20/08
Report Offensive Comment