Republican delegate system of winner take all is better

[quinnox]

This proportional stuff is crap. If a candidate wins the state they should get all the delegates. Winner take all is the way to go. And no, I'm not saying this just because Hillary would have won the nomination yesterday if this was the case, Obama should also get all the delegates in states he won. This will make the nominating process drag out for too long.

A win is a win is a win. This proportional nonsense needs to go!

[havocmom]

1. Gee, heard the opposite back when there was winner take all for DEMs

Everybody seems to want the system that benefits their candidate. Hmmm, winner take all takes the voice from millions of voters.

Hillary wants the voters in FL and MI to be heard. You don't favor ALL the voters being heard? Slippery slope, isn't it?

[Kazak]

2. Along with the electoral college!!

:shrug:

[godai]

14. Yes...let's change the entire system so it's easier for Hillary

The current system is democracy in action. Would it be better that the upcoming primaries were meaningless? Usually this close a race doesn't happen but there are 2 equally strong candidates and it's going to take a while to determine the nominee.

[leftynyc]

16. So you'll be okay with it

when the superdelegates put Clinton over the top? I mean rules are rules.

[godai]

18. I'll be OK if all the rules are followed. Let's see where we stand a week from now.

States in Obama's favor are coming up.

[yourout]

3. Disagree.......the current system (without superdelegates) represents popular vote and.....

that is what America is suppose to be about.

And as far as I am concerned throw out the electoral college.

Yes I know Bush won the popular vote but I still belive in majority rule.

"Of the People by the People and for the People..."

[formernaderite]

7. majority rule can also become mob rule

and depending on which side you're on....can certainly disenfranchise the minority voice

[joshcryer]

17. Actually, some super delegates chose their candidate based on who wins the state.

Boxer for instance.

[TexasObserver]

4. NOT!!!

Proportional makes every voter in every state important.

That's the Democratic way.

[stahbrett]

5. I was thinking just the opposite - proportional makes sense for the electoral college too!

I'm not as sure about basing it on congressional district, however. Just base it on the percentage of the total - if you win 60%, you get 60% of the delegates/electoral college voters. Easy to understand, makes a WHOLE lot more sense than treating a 50.001% victory the same as a 65% victory, etc.

[Renew Deal]

6. They have a mixed system

There's some winner take all and some proportional. I like the proportional system, but I don't like super-delegates as much.

[Bullet1987]

10. I like our system...but WITHOUT Superdelegates

[K Gardner]

8. Randi Rhodes had an excellent discussion about the history of the

proportional representation/superdelegates (which is relatively "new") and how this entire system needs to be changed, on Air America yesterday. People really need to be educated about HOW we "elect" our nominee and we need to decide, as a party, how to proceed in years to come. I agree the system rather.. stinks.

[quinnox]

12. It does stink

This whole system is far too complicated and it needs to be streamlined.

[kentuck]

9. Very much disagree...

Then the candidates with the most money will only focus on the few big states and we will get the best President that money can buy.

[scheming daemons]

11. I guess what happened in 2000 with the electoral college was OK with you then...

[quinnox]

20. No, because Gore won Florida

Bush stole Florida.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. Proportional system is better.

It allows for representation of the minority in any given state.
It prolongs the primaries, allowing further scrutiny. (sometimes)

Winner-take-all is a Republican construct. I'd like the GE to be proportional, with IRV.

As for the process dragging out- What's the hurry?

[quinnox]

21. It will weaken the Dem nominee

While the republicans will wrap this up early with McCain, now Hillary and Obama have to continue for months and spend money fighting each other and the tone is bound to get worse between them, with negative campaigning.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

23. I disagree.

Clinton and Obama will receive more exposure and it will show the depth of the Democratic Party. We've got 2 candidates better than McCain. Not to mention, McCain isn't moving forward untarnished by his own party.

The 2 months between the convention and the election will be more than enough time to heal most, if not all, rifts.

[demo dutch]

15. Agreed! Eitherway: Exit Polls say winning issues Economy #1, & Out of Iraq within 1 yr & healthcare

It's going to about the excitement of the Dem side and the devision on the Repub side. We'll beat McCain on every issue, so I see a dem in the WH, whether we fight about it right now or not!!!!

[mcscajun]

19. I prefer proportional. If the totals are 51% to 49%, there's 49% disenfranchisement, IMO.

No thanks.

I'd like to see more proportional impacts in voting, not less. IRV would be good, too.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

24. See #13.

We completely agree. :party:

[dionysus]

22. aww, you're sad it was a close race...

here's a tissue...