Honest question for Obama supporters

[quinnox]

Its accepted that the next primaries all favor Obama. Now, lets say Obama wins most of the states in the next few weeks.

Would you rather Hillary gain a significant chunk of delegates under the proportional system in place even though she loses most of the states, or would you rather Obama win all the delegates in the states he wins and Hillary gets 0 delegates in those states?

Be honest.


Edited: hmm, ok, I guess I have the minority opinion on this system. I would want Obama to win all the delegates because the winner take all system is better IMHO.

[tyne]

1. Why would

we want to change the rules now?

Not our bag, imo.

[TeamJordan23]

3. exaclty, each campaign would have run a different strategy if the system was different. nm

[Coexist]

2. I think the county by county system is incredibly fair

it gives all areas of the state a voice.

One of my republican friends who switched confused about the difference, after I explained it, he was impressed.

[MH1]

7. I agree - the proportional allocation is better

As long as it's done by a fair rationale and the rules aren't changed in the middle of the game.

[KittyWampus]

4. Rules have been written. I'm not into changing them now. IMO, the current system seems fair

[Abacus]

5. Proportional. Honest.

I think a proportional system better represents the voters.

[Nailzberg]

6. Proportional

[thevoiceofreason]

8. Same system throughout.

If you do winner takes all, folks ignore states they are trailing in to concentrate where they might win. This defeats the purpose of the 50 state strategy and turns it into electioneering.

[Sulawesi]

9. Proportional

That is the way the rules were set up, Obama's campaign is designed around those rules.

[scheming daemons]

10. Proportional.....

...its the way the Electoral College should work as well.

Hillary deserves her proportional share of the upcoming states.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. I want change

Another Clinton is not change. I don't care how Obama gets it, but I prefer him as the candidate.

[rucky]

12. I don't think the winner-take-all system works...

but I wish the delegates were more equally representative of the population

[scheming daemons]

13. Addendum...

Proportional allocation means that the candidates campaign in all the states.

If it was "winner take all".... Obama would've spent no time in NY... Hillary would've spent no time in Illinois.....


Proportional allocation means there are good reasons for a candidate to visit a state that they will likely lose overall.


If we did this with the Electoral College as well... it would mean that Democrats would visit Texas and Republicans would visit California.

That would be a GOOD thing.

[NightWatcher]

14. isnt Hillary the one who changes the rules (ie Florida)?

[Raine]

15. Proportional

winner take all in a way is like disenfranching some voters, their voice has been stiffled.

[BattyDem]

16. Proportional.

It allows every vote to actually mean something. If "Candidate A" gets 500,000 votes and "Candidate B" gets 500,001 votes, "Candidate B" would get all the delegates if the system wasn't proportional. Why should a single vote silence the voices of so many people? That's the way the Electoral College works and I don't like it. If the delegates in the GE were proportional, all candidates would have to campaign in all states. Everyone would have a voice.

Frankly, I think the Electoral College's "winner take all" system is a big part of the reason why we have "red states" and "blue states" - the parties simply "concede" a state that has traditionally gone red/blue. They don't even bother to visit those states because there is no good reason to spend money in places where you aren't likely to get any delegates. If the delegates were proportional, they couldn't ignore those states. Progressives in a red state would finally have a voice, as would conservatives in a blue state ... and I think it would prove once and for all that this country is very "purple" in most areas. The "divide and conquer" brand of politics probably wouldn't be as effective. JMHO



edited: typo :blush:

[Occam Bandage]

17. Proportional. It works better.

[BringBigDogBack]

18. Proportional.