Winning primaries: Dems vs. Reps way of delegate allocation

As we all know, Democrats and Republicans have a different way of allocating delegates. Democrats favor proportional representation, whereby a second place finisher still gets delegates; republicans mostly go for the winner-takes-all principle. We all also know that currently (prior to Tuesday the 12th) Romney dropped out with just 300 delegates to McCain's 700, whereas the Democratic race is in the dead heat with Clinton having 800 delegates to Obama's 750.

Now, the interesting thing is to see how the numbers would be lining up if the Democrats had winner-take-all, and Republicans had representational systems. (To be fair, the following numbers are approximate for the Republicans, since most democratic primaries allocate delegates depending on the districts won, whereas the numbers below only work off of the state totals; nevertheless, they are very close to what it "would have been). So, on the Democratic side, Clinton would already have 1050 delegates to Obama's 650, marking her as a clear front runner. It's even more interesting on the Republican side - Romney would have 455 delegates, McCain would have 440, and Huckabee would have 300. Romney would have certainly still been in the race, and McCain's campaign might have been running out of money. As it is, of course, under the current Republican system Romney did not get any benefit from his strong 2nd place finishes in most states.

I've been debating as to which system is better. It appears that the Democratic one is far more... well... democratic! While I may personally be tickled pink to see McCain representing the Republican party, I am admittedly not exactly a conservative. Perhaps, Romney would have been a more appropriate candidate to represent the party as it is. OTOH, the Democratic system is more detrimental to the party. While Republicans already have a presumptive nominee, Democrats are still embroiled in a contest that might see them beating each other up all the way to the convention, thus giving Reps. an edge. So, I guess the Democratic system may be better for choosing the best candidate, whereas the Republican one may present a candidate that's more electable.

So, what system do you think is better?

Interesting question. As a Democrat, it is hard for me to see any plus in the painfully long, divisive battle going on now. Maybe if the primaries weren't so early and the overall campaign thus soooooooooo long, I'd prefer the "more democratic" system.

It looks like (as usual) the Republicans will end up unifying around their candidate while the Dems remain bitterly divided. I'm not pleased about it.

Howard Dean

Howard Dean is a complete idiot. He stripped delegates off the most important swing states MI and FL in order to maintain 'order'... He allowed Obama to take advantage of the weird caucus system to score one win after another in stupid places such as Alaska(a few hundred showed up)...

I hope after another defeat of the democratic party in Nov, the two-party system will finally break up. This is what I'd like to see afterwards.

1) Democratic Party:
White limousine ultra-liberals (represented by Kerry + Kennedy+dailykooks), fervent peaceniks,

African Americans who believe skin color is the most important factor in selecting a candidate(represented by Obama)

2)New Party:
Asians+Hispanics+Jews+African Americans who believe qualification is more important than skin color

White working class democrats, moderate and conservative democrats(Lieberman, blue dogs etc)

Moderate Republicans who believe in fiscal conservatism, social liberalism

3)Republican Party:
Religious nuts, war-mongers etc.


:chorus:

netnuts said:

(Lieberman, blue dogs etc)

Click to expand...

Lieberman lost me 8 years ago when he talked about 1st amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion.

Ptichka said:

Lieberman lost me 8 years ago when he talked about 1st amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion.

Click to expand...

Lieberman is a bit nutty from time to time. He's too pro Israel... I was just randomly picking him out for an example of moderate/conservative democrats.

Despite media's hype, I don't see how Obama can win general election in the end. He has major problems with Hispanics/Asians/Jews.... To put it blunt, Obama is a perfect example of what's wrong with American society. People are so gullible, meritocricy and qualification do not seem to matter, superficial idolizing is what matters.

This kind of culture is a complete turn-off for many so-called 'model' minority groups such as Asians/Jews/Hispanics who actually value hard-working.Mark my word, if Obama is the nominee, he'll struggle in traditional democratic strongholds such as CA. He will also have major problem in places such as OH and FL. I will definitley root for McCain under such scenario.

My feelings about this, and as you know i am a cynic, is that first get rid of The Woman (who could beat McCain or any Republican) and then get rid of The Black Man in the Election. Agree with possible thinking?

Joe