Wondering about your thoughts on winner-take-all Republican Primaries.
By A Rational Liberal Posted in The Parties — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In the world of progressives we're all abuzz about Super Tuesday, especially since polls are getting tighter by the second and it appears as if Obama may just catch and pass Clinton in California. (And Connecticut? Delaware? Missouri?)
But what makes it all more interesting is that all the Democratic primaries are proportional, most often based on congressional districts and so... even if he were not to win most of the states he could end up with, essentially, as many delegates.
Not so on the Republican side where many of the states (most of?) are winner-take-all.
So, I wonder, given the strong preference here for Romney if there's any thought to changing the Republican primaries to be more reflective of the different wings of the party, specifically the Republican wing of the Republican party?
And for a wacky California bonus... Arnold endorses McCain, then Maria shows up at an Obama ralley and endorses Obama.
Are they even speaking to each other?
Only on the left coast.
If you want a say in a party's primaries, register with that party.
The electoral college is a hand-out to smaller states, who would never get attention in a one person one vote system, but why not at least allow one electoral vote per congressional district around the country and divvy them up based on the winner of each district.
The winner-takes-all-practice mirrors how most states award their electoral votes, and I have no problem with it.
I did watch Maria Shriver on C-Span do her thing for Obama. I never thought she would give up her political leanings just because she's married to the Governator. And that's a good thing.
While Mrs. Clinton may be the more qualified, my gut tells me better the Audacity of Hope than the audacities from Hope, Arkansas.
...how Republicans tend to nominate in order Reagan loses to Nixon, then Reagan gets his shot... Bush Father loses to Reagan, then Bush Father gets his shot. So now, McCain loses to Bush Son and so... We're much more chaotic.
Lord knows McCain needs them to close this thing fast.
_________________________________________________
We're all in the same boat, fellas.
But our shenanigans are cheeky and fun.
His shenanigans are cruel and tragic.
Which wouldn't make them shenanigans, at all, really.
-Evil shenanigans!
Normally I'd probably say it's not a great way to do things, because it ends up making campaigning absurdly expensive in the winner-take-all states.
That said, this year? Yeah, I'm grateful too. I'm so sick of this primary season I could barf. I'm totally ready to have a nominee and get on with it.
------------
~ Beth ~
I'm pretty sure it's 9 states out of 20. Personally, I think it's good to have a mix. I think that proportional primaries are probably more fair, but when every primary has proportional representation in an even two-person race like the one with Clinton and Obama, you can't really come to a conclusion even when one candidate is winning most of the states. And in today's ever-longer campaign seasons, it's important that parties do have their nominees pre-convention.
No one of good character leaves behind a wasted life - John McCain
...getting to the nominee quicker ain't necessarily better. I'm kinda liking the fact that our side is being teased out so that the nominee won't be decided upon until many more of the campaign issues are known.
:)
Seriously, I don't think that the difference in primary delegate allocation makes all that much difference on the not-steeped-in-politics level that 95% of the population usually lives in. Which is either an indictment of the system, or the greatest praise possible of it; pick the one that sings to you.
Moe
PS: Like the commenter above, I wouldn't expect that Maria would change parties when she got married, either.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
...there'd be a chance that we WOULD be close to done on Wednesday. As it looks now, we'll be right back to where we are now... with HRC holding a slight delegate lead... and BHO having then next four primaries tee'd up for him.
We'll be done, if we're lucky, by the end of March.
As for Maria, I'm just surprised she endorsed at all. As we discussed with the Berkeley thing, there's saying something and saying nothing. I'd have expected Maria to stay neutral given Arnold's endorsement, but... all the better.
States go "all in" with their delegates to make their state have greater impact on the process and to attract greater political attention. Given the chaos of the primary process, it doesn't work as well for them as it does for smaller states in the Presidential Election.
A candidate will do one of two things with a winner-take-all primary. Either
A) They go all in and live in the state for as long as they can,
or
B) They write it off to the point where I'd have to be a politics nerd to even know they are seeking office.
I can take or leave winner take all primaries. I'd be a lot more suspicious of a winner take all caucus.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
To me, I'd rather we had more states with nice, simple processes such as New York's.
What I hate are the overly complicated messes we have in places like Louisiana, which are clearly designed just to avoid delegate penalties.
One way or another we need some simplification.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I actually think Hillary is toast.
Problem for Hillary is that in some of these states its an open primary so many Indep are jumping in and voting for Obama plus like you mentioned so many of these states are by congressional districts so its very realistic that Obama could lose a state like Missouri and yet still win more congressional districts. Hillary has been winning when she has by winning big Dem cities but she is losing all rest of those part of states.
I hope she pulls it off but Obama has all mojo
is a good one, because my feelings on it are the same as my feelings on winner-take-all general elections: I believe they rob the voters of their voices. I live in New York, so my vote is stolen in every state-wide and national election by NYC and Albany. Yahoo for Winner-take-all.
I would defy anyone to explain what purpose such a system serves, and how it is preferable to "one man, one vote" (yes, I believe the two ideas to be mutually exclusive).
As for the primaries themselves, I think we'd do much better in general by eliminating open voting. Though it's still possible to cheat a closed election, it's much more a PIA for somebody to go out and switch party affiliations just to throw off the vote than it is to just walk in.
Fred Thompson, 2008