If the system made sense, Clinton would be far ahead

[LongTimePCUser]

The Democratic primary system is just broken. It does not represent what the way the November elections will work.

"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. "
Salon article

I hate to say this, but the Republican primaries work much more like the November elections than the Democratic primaries. Winner take all. No super delegates. Especially no caucus. In November it is a blind vote. Your boss and your neighbors will not know who you voted for.

 

[bamacre]

In the system we call reality, Obama has the nomination locked up.

 

[nageov3t]

it's kind of a moot point... if Hillary had as much experience as she claimed to, she should have been prepared to campaign in clusterfucks like Texas and every unrepresentative caucus.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not really sure why a 'winner takes all' system really makes that much more sense. Obama and Hillary both have delegate counts that mirror their percentage of the popular vote very closely. This means to me that the delegates have been awarded in a manner that is pretty representative of the will of the democratic electorate. What's the big problem?

 

[nageov3t]

What's the big problem?

the fact that we can go for months on end with a 51:49 split because of proportional assignment, with neither candidate ever really pulling ahead substantially and neither being able to win without the super delegates (which shouldn't even exist)

 

[ProfJohn]

I think the "problem", as the OP states, is that the current Dem system does not match the system that will be used in the fall.

The Dem system certainly makes for better drama, but not sure it makes for a better outcome for the Democrats.

One thing the Dems should do is ditch the super-delegate BS. Without them Hillary would be toast and the race would be over. With them Hillary has a chance to win and will fight all the way to the end.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: LongTimePCUser
The Democratic primary system is just broken. It does not represent what the way the November elections will work.

"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. "
Salon article

I hate to say this, but the Republican primaries work much more like the November elections than the Democratic primaries. Winner take all. No super delegates. Especially no caucus. In November it is a blind vote. Your boss and your neighbors will not know who you voted for.

I seem to remember a few years ago people complaining that a certain candidate lost a certain election even though he had the popular vote. You can't have it both ways.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the "problem", as the OP states, is that the current Dem system does not match the system that will be used in the fall.

The Dem system certainly makes for better drama, but not sure it makes for a better outcome for the Democrats.

One thing the Dems should do is ditch the super-delegate BS. Without them Hillary would be toast and the race would be over. With them Hillary has a chance to win and will fight all the way to the end.

so, get rid of anything that gives Hillary an advantage and keep all the advantages in place for Obama?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the "problem", as the OP states, is that the current Dem system does not match the system that will be used in the fall.

The Dem system certainly makes for better drama, but not sure it makes for a better outcome for the Democrats.

One thing the Dems should do is ditch the super-delegate BS. Without them Hillary would be toast and the race would be over. With them Hillary has a chance to win and will fight all the way to the end.

so, get rid of anything that gives Hillary an advantage and keep all the advantages in place for Obama?

I am not looking at it like that

Get rid of something that takes the power away from the voters and gives it to a bunch of party insiders.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the "problem", as the OP states, is that the current Dem system does not match the system that will be used in the fall.

The Dem system certainly makes for better drama, but not sure it makes for a better outcome for the Democrats.

One thing the Dems should do is ditch the super-delegate BS. Without them Hillary would be toast and the race would be over. With them Hillary has a chance to win and will fight all the way to the end.

so, get rid of anything that gives Hillary an advantage and keep all the advantages in place for Obama?

I am not looking at it like that

Get rid of something that takes the power away from the voters and gives it to a bunch of party insiders.

just busting your balls

personally, I'd really like to see an end to super delegates, an end to caucuses, and some way of giving a bonus to the winner of the popular vote in every state so that you don't end up with these dead even splits (or the TX clusterfuck, where Hillary won the popular vote by a nice chunk and ended up with fewer delegates)

 

[miketheidiot]

winner take all is far less democratic than the supposedly undemocratic caucuses. I can't believe someone is seriously suggesting that it would be an improvement, when already its considered a serious flaw of american democracy.

 

[Dari]

Well, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a repubic so take your mob mentality and shove it.

EDIT: Besides, if we lived in a true democracy then celebraties could run for office and win easily simply because of name recognition. Let's face it, that's what Clinton is riding on right now. Without her last name she would be nobody. OTOH, Obama had to work thrice as hard to build his brand instead of inheriting it from somebody else.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre
In the system we call reality, Obama has the nomination locked up.

what he said.

 

[Farang]

The similarities between a primary process and the general election process are irrelevant. If you believe they are relevant you need to explain why.

 

[venkman]

Next January, when they make the list of the most overused words in 2008, I think "superdelegate" will win the award running away!

 

[Coldkilla]

Oh wow she gets 51% and Obama gets 49%! Lets overrule half of the population and just force there vote over to Hillary. It's the republican rules that are screwed up.

 

[trenchfoot]

if current trends hold like they seem they will, obama will be the next president of the good 'ol US of A.

deal with it. live with it.

hillary saw the more than obvious writing on the wall and had to be the first among the candidates to drag out and operate from her trash dumpster full of mud and underhanded ploys to try and get ahead of the disaster she unwittingly created by arrogantly taking for granted the she was the anointed successor of the bush dictatorship.

oh yeah, and please thank the bush administration and that rubber stamping republican controlled congress that bush and cheney had an orgy with for six years for making this all happen.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm not really sure why a 'winner takes all' system really makes that much more sense. Obama and Hillary both have delegate counts that mirror their percentage of the popular vote very closely. This means to me that the delegates have been awarded in a manner that is pretty representative of the will of the democratic electorate. What's the big problem?

And yet come this fall a good third of the states will have nary a sighting of the candidates as there votes don't matter much in the big scheme. I have little doubt that between now and four years hence the dem system will be adjusted to appear more like the republican system. After all, how many dems are going to want to win the popular vote in a state and lose in the delegate count.

 

[dmcowen674]

Maybe the Supreme Court will assign the Nominee again.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: LongTimePCUser
Topic Title: If the system made sense, Clinton would be tarred, feathered, and banished from the country.

fixed.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Maybe the Supreme Court will assign the Nominee again.

Only when the opponent attemtps to cherry pick the results.:shocked:

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm not really sure why a 'winner takes all' system really makes that much more sense. Obama and Hillary both have delegate counts that mirror their percentage of the popular vote very closely. This means to me that the delegates have been awarded in a manner that is pretty representative of the will of the democratic electorate. What's the big problem?

And yet come this fall a good third of the states will have nary a sighting of the candidates as there votes don't matter much in the big scheme. I have little doubt that between now and four years hence the dem system will be adjusted to appear more like the republican system. After all, how many dems are going to want to win the popular vote in a state and lose in the delegate count.

Let's not kid ourselves and act as though that scenario is the reason for Obama's lead. How many delegates of his does that account for? 20?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: LongTimePCUser
Topic Title: If the system made sense, Clinton would be tarred, feathered, and banished from the country.

fixed.

:laugh:

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
Oh wow she gets 51% and Obama gets 49%! Lets overrule half of the population and just force there vote over to Hillary. It's the republican rules that are screwed up.

So instead you would force the majority to vote for the minorities pick?

Also, could you elaborate on how the Republican rules are screwed up? Watching the clusterfuck unfold that is the Dems nomination process and seeing where the repubs are it seems to me the repubs are in a better spot.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
Oh wow she gets 51% and Obama gets 49%! Lets overrule half of the population and just force there vote over to Hillary. It's the republican rules that are screwed up.

So instead you would force the majority to vote for the minorities pick?

Also, could you elaborate on how the Republican rules are screwed up? Watching the clusterfuck unfold that is the Dems nomination process and seeing where the repubs are it seems to me the repubs are in a better spot.

It is amazing somebody can complain that 51% of the voters should override 49% and then complain the oppositions party has the screwed up rules.

Super delegates are an issue. It is as if the party is saying "Our voters arent smart enough to determine who should get the nomination and we reserve the right to determine it for them".