If Democrats Were Republicans
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton | Kneel Before Zod | Let's You And Him Fight | Rooting For Injuries — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sean Wilentz raises an interesting point:
Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats in primary states choose their nominee on the basis of a convoluted system of proportional distribution of delegates that varies from state to state and that obtains in neither congressional nor presidential elections. It is this eccentric system that has given Obama his lead in the delegate count. If the Democrats heeded the "winner takes all" democracy that prevails in American politics, and that determines the president, Clinton would be comfortably in front. In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,257. If she splits the 10 remaining contests with Obama, as seems plausible, with Clinton taking Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana and Puerto Rico, and Obama winning North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana, Oregon and Guam, she'd pick up another 364 pledged delegates. She'd have 2,107 before a single superdelegate was wooed. You need 2,024 to be the Democratic nominee. Game over. No more blogospheric ranting about Clinton "stealing" the nomination by kidnapping superdelegates or cutting deals at a brokered convention.
Watch as this becomes a Clinton campaign talking point to bring up the general issue of "electability." Sure, this entire argument has an "if wishes were horses" tinge about it. But compared to other pro-Clinton arguments, this one actually is not that bad.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Dark Horse Veep Watch: Don Carcieri (Gov-RI) — Comments (48) »
If Democrats Were Republicans 5 Comments (0 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
the winner-take-all system employed by the Republicans is, itself, a travesty, which renders dissenting votes meaningless. For example, since I live in New York (a winner-take-all state), my vote went to McCain, on the national level, in spite of the fact that I specifically didn't vote for him.
Not that the Dem system isn't also broken in other ways, but the proportional delegate system is, I think, preferable in that it allows every vote to mean something.
Fred Thompson, 2008
rstreu,
You are today's winner of the "Unclear On The Concept" award!
The purpose of elections is produce winners, not emotional validation for voters.
The purpose of elections is to give voters a voice in government. That's what makes us a democratic republic. If McCain won, McCain won. That's not really at issue. There's still a winner, even if you remove the winner-take-all component of the contest. However, removing that -may- change the outcome to one that more accurately reflects all of the voters.
The point -you've- missed is that it's not about validation. It's about representation.
Fred Thompson, 2008
Look at it like this. Not only did they design it* this way, this is the way they wanted it to work. They wanted a system that was meticulous fair that would always have to produce an inherently unfair result. Then you toss in the superdelegates which are purely a design flaw from the pick a candidate standpoint but an excellent opportunity to convert campaign contributions into legitimate graft and you have system that you look at and ask just what is this supposed to do and why did you put in a big red self destruct button.
So just what were the design goals that the Dem Primary system served ?
1. Super Delegates:
Stated Purpose: allow the wisdom of party elders to prevent mistakes.
Actual Effect: Allows party elders to get their beaks wet in the funds raised by candidates. Also serves as a party self destruct button in that if they ever decide anything the party blows up.
2. Proportional awards of delegates.:
Stated Purpose: Allow everyone to have a say
Actual Effect: Indefinitely prolongs the primary system if there is a close race. Also arms the self destruct button.
3, Emphasis on Caucasus:
Stated Purpose: Build party unity
Actual Effect: Serves as practice for voter manipulation and electioneering.
There are other aspects that don't have Deceitful descriptions stated rationals The complicated awarding of delegates is pretty much to make certain that some people are more equal than others. (Usually with no regard to how beneficial they will be in a general election)
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If you're going to use the General Election Electoral Vote counts to determine the nebulous "Electability", then you really ought to be looking at which candidate can win the swing states.
Which would be a whole different set of calculations. Not sure Clinton would do so well in that comparison.