If the Democratic Party had winner take all primaries....

[hiaasenrocks]

Here's how the delegate count stands now, using the numbers at RealClearPolitics.com

Obama: 1371
Clinton: 1218

If the Dems had a winner takes all formula, here's how it would look today:

Clinton: 1405
Obama: 1237

(Note - There's a 53 delegate difference, in total count, between the two scenarios. Under the current system, there are 53 delegates awarded to candidates who have dropped out of the race. In the winner take all scenario they would of course be awarded to one or the other remaining candidates.)

***EDIT: Before anyone accuses me of posting this as Clintonian sour grapes or anything along those lines, don't bother. I'm just posting it as an item of interest.***

[jackson_dem]

1. Proportional voting is a joke

When 0bama can gain 9 delegates from a 17,000 vote win in Idaho but Hillary gains only 8 for a 230,000 vote win in Ohio you know something is fucked up...

[thunder rising]

2. First, get an education, then make a statement from that position.

[jackson_dem]

4. Spoken like a true cultist

[TAWS]

7. It is fair...

Idaho has 18 delegates. Obama won 79% of the vote to Clinton's 17%. 79% of the delegates is 14.2, which is close to his 15 delegates out of the state. 17% of the vote would be about 3 delegates, which Clinton got.

It's her fault for allowing such a lop-sided win

She's even lucky to have those 3 delegates because if she fell below 15% threshold, she wouldn't have gotten any delegates.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. Too mathy.

[MadBadger]

10. How does Winner take all make it better?

Lets pretend Hillary won California by one vote. Do you think its fair that she takes 370 delegates?

[TAWS]

12. California isn't even winner take all in the Republican primary n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

14. It seems your problem is with the way delegates are apportioned, not proportional representation

I too think the way delegates are apportioned is absurd. But proportional representation is much fairer than winner take all.

[lapfog_1]

3. Yup, we'd have a real "Al Gore" situation on our hands

The person with the majority of the popular vote would not win in the pledged delegate race.

Fortunately, we don't have "winner take all", probably for just that reason.

[cosmik debris]

5. You can't change one variable and assume

That all other variables would stay the same. Your premise is faulty. Therefore your numbers are bogus.

[hiaasenrocks]

6. People would vote differently under winner take all rules?

That's interesting.

[cosmik debris]

8. People would campaign differently

People would contribute differently. People would caucus differently.

You can't predict all the differences.

You just created a hypothetical situation.

You can't draw an exact comparison between the hypothetical and the reality.

[hiaasenrocks]

16. How would they do those things differently?

The other party relies heavily on winner take all. How are their campaign strategies different?

Just asking, because you seem to know.

[cosmik debris]

18. What I know is statistics

What I know is that when you change one variable, the other variables also change.

What I know is that neither you nor I can predict all the changes that those variables might make.

What I know is that you can't rationally make the assumption that only one variable will change.

Your logic falls apart. Your numbers become meaningless.

[hiaasenrocks]

19. OK, so you don't really know.

We have two different opinions on this. Nothing wrong with that.

[cosmik debris]

20. I'm not expressing an opinion

I'm stating the logic and science of statistical analysis.

You can not logically assume that only one variable will change.

That assumption is the basis of your calculation.

Therefore your calculation is not logically valid.

That is not an opinion. That is a logical conclusion, a basic syllogism.

[hiaasenrocks]

21. LOL. If it makes your ego happy, I'll declare you the winner.

Now, enough with the word games and people who argue for the sake of arguing.

:hi:

[cosmik debris]

22. You should learn about logic and math before posting nonsense

You don't do yourself any credit by proving that you don't know what you are talking about.

[fishwax]

25. exactly--campaign strategies would be different under that scenario n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. The Democratic Party doesn't have winner-take-all primaries, though.

So this is an irrelevant bit of, to put it bluntly, wanking. If the presidency were decided by popular vote and not the Electoral College, we'd be at the end of Al Gore's second term, too.

[hiaasenrocks]

15. Nah, not irrelevant.

We have two major political parties in this country. One relies heavily on winner take all. (Whether that's good or bad is immaterial.) So it's not irrelevant to look at how this could be played out if the Democratic Party did it the same way.

Also, I never claimed that this should be the method. Again, as I said in my edit a while ago, just a point of interest.

[1awake]

13. We don't have a

winner take all system because it was never intended to be one, and for good reasons. Not getting into history, look at it this way. Imagine a presidential race that was purely the popular vote. First.. why would any presidential runner pay any attention beyond cursory to any other states other than New York, California, Florida, and maybe Texas? If they can win those, they effectively would overrule ALL the other states.. always. Why would those states ever want to be apart of a system that had their voices drowned out?

[hiaasenrocks]

17. The same argument could be made on the state level.

I live in a state that has three major population centers, but a lot of people in rural areas. Governors and US Reps and Senators can win those three metro areas. Should we change statewide elections to proportional elections?

Just playing Devil's Advocate here.

[1awake]

24. The argument could be made

for several levels, but it was the "states" who threatened to not be part of the US if it was strictly Popular vote. Of course.. I live in WV which did break away from a stste for conflicting voices/beliefs.

[surfin]

23. Mahalo, I asked for this last night, watch for a lawsuit from Hillary

It is not fair.

[Gore1FL]

26. The reason for proportional voting

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=577233D6-3048-5C12-00130D7F22398B28

[AtomicKitten]

27. And if my grandmother had 'em, she'd be my grandfather.

:shrug:

[TacticalPeek]

28. Something closer to winner-take-all would be more like the actual contest: the electoral college.

Seems like there is virtue in having the nominating contest reflect the realities of the following election contest. I'd say the electoral college system needs reforming, but until then you wouldn't want to stray too far from that track in how we pick the nominee. IOW, test their eventual winning ability.