AJC.com > Opinion > Opinion Talk > Archives > 2008 > February > 06 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USShould the Democrats stop allocating delegates proportionately?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The Democrats are dedicated to egalitarianism —an instinct that is both the party’s strength and its weakness. Egalitarianism — a deeply held belief in the fundamental equality of all people, especially in political, economic and social life — was the party’s weakness in the 1970s, when it became a collection of warring factions, each dedicated to its own identity politics.
That same belief, however, has allowed the party to produce the first viable female and black candidates for president. Somewhere along the way, egalitarianism also led the Democrats to start dividing their nominating delegates proportionately. Unlike the Electoral College, which is a winner-take-all system, Democrats give each nominee a portion of a state’s delegates, roughly divided according to what percentage of the vote (or what geographic areas) he or she received. Is that a strength or a weakness?
If the Democrats did not award delegates proportionately, Sen. Clinton would have all-but secured the nomination by now, allowing her more time to consolidate the party in order to confront the Republican in November. In the Republican Party, which leans toward a winner-take-all system, McCain is much closer to securing the nomination.
Should the Democrats stop allocating delegates proportionately?
Permalink | Comments (24) | Categories: Forum
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Ann
February 6, 2008 8:10 AM | Link to this
The democratic selection process is ridiculous! It should be consistent with the the traditional college electorate where the winner takes all. This proportional splitting of states encourages divisiveness instead of unity, and prevents the party from uniting for the greater good! CHANGE!
By Chris
February 6, 2008 8:34 AM | Link to this
I say “yes”. BOTH parties should go to the winner-take-all system. However, that is only if they also close primaries as well. Someone who decided not to join a party should not be able to have a say in who that party nominates. If the primary is closed…then YES
By SUJATA
February 6, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this
Yes. Sen. Clinton would have secured the nomination by now,if Democrats allowed the Electoral take-all system. She would definitely have more time to consolidate the party for November. Why they believe in something that doesn’t allow them to unify/solidify early on in the process?
By melissa
February 6, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this
No. The system is working! Clinton was in the lead because of name recognition— and visability. Obama is catching up because his campaign is well organized, and he has a vision for America people are responding to— turning out new voters and building unity. The system as it is allows for every vote to count and it should. Why would we want to risk nominating the weaker candidate?
By melissa
February 6, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this
No. The system is working! Clinton was in the lead because of name recognition— and visability. Obama is catching up because his campaign is well organized, and he has a vision for America people are responding to— turning out new voters and building unity. The system as it is allows for every vote to count and it should. Why would we want to risk nominating the weaker candidate?
By Arlin
February 6, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
it should remain the same as it is. i think the Electoral College should be changed. Basically what it does is encourage candidates to concentrate on only a few states to win and when you vote for a losing candidate in your state then your vote means absolutely nothing. Why in a democratic society would you not put the candidate in with the most votes recieved from all the people voting?????????
By Goldie
February 6, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
The Electoral College system is a mess in electing our Presidents. Therefore, the proportional system is more representative of all voters and their desires, instead of the Republicans’ more dictatorial style of “winner-takes-all”, simply to begin the lock-step process all the sooner…
By Ross
February 6, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
No. Candidates would only campaign in the states with the most delegates.
By Copyleft
February 6, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
Proportional representation is the better reflection of the voting public. If anything needs to change, it’s the winner-take-all electoral college, not the Democrats’ process.
By The truth
February 6, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this
Who cares? The democrats are racists idiots.
George Wallace-Democrat
Bull Connor-Democrat
Cynthia likes to write about how racist the south is and sometimes brings these two guys up. Just thought I’d give Liberals a taste of their own medicine. Democrats are WAY more racist.
By RG
February 6, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this
I don’t like the electoral college system. The dividing up proportionally for the primaries is a little better, but I’d actually like to see us drop both processes and go for the straight popular vote..i think that is the fairest way
By PF
February 6, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this
What a ridiculously biased column. The party would not be united behind Hillary, as shown by the 50-50 vote split nationwide. Winner-take-all would give a huge advantage to “name recognition” candidates like Clinton and make it harder than it already is for small candidates to win.
Not to mention the fact that candidates would basically camp out in NY and California.
By The truth
February 6, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this
RG, Are you really that dumb? If we allow the popular vote to be the deciding factor then you’d have candidates buying the votes. Our founding fathers were a hell of a lot smarter then you. Our system is fine. IF we’d had popular votes be the factor then Bill CLinton would NEVER have been president. He never won the popular vote. Go back to school and learn how the electoral process is supposed to work.
By gttim
February 6, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this
Winner take all is not a true reflection of the population. The proportional system works better, although a popular vote would be even better than that. I would like to see all the states go to proportional system in the Electoral College, which could happen. It is the states that decide how the electoral votes are distributed. The founding fathers did not dictate how this is done.
Actually, I think a longer primary season helps the Democratic Party. Our ideals and principles will dominate the news cycle more than the GOP’s primary season, which is basically over.
And to “The Truth” who did not get anything correct:
The truth is Bill Clinton got more popular votes than any of his opponents. So yes, he did win the popular vote. Perhaps you should be the one to return to school.
By just me
February 6, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this
Obviously, the nation has not made its decision on a Democratic nominee. Why would the delegates rus hto judgment with an all-or-none system like the Republicans? I believe that an all-or-none system would be even more divisive because it would infuriate the Obama supporters who saw him win more states than Clinton, being only a few percentage points behind in the total vote count. Essentially, New York, Texas and California would choose our nominee and elect our president. I would like the other 47 states to have a say in the matter.
By The truth
February 6, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this
gttim, The democrat ideals? What ideals? Take this country in to socialism? The mainstream media is in the tank for the democrats. We now have the worst congress in the history of the country and you want more of these idiots in charge. I really hope Hillary is the nominee. McCain will have more democrat and independent defects and will bury that power hungry lesbian.
By Conscious
February 6, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
When the Democratic contest is complete, I predict that it will be a unified and unbeatable Clinton-Obama ticket.
The issue that all Democrats MUST keep in mind is that the next president will nominate at least THREE Supreme Court Justices that will set this nation’s judicial course for the next two to three decades. If this reality does not mobolize Democrats to come together (regardless of who the nominee is) then what will?
By The truth
February 6, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
It doesn’t matter what the outcome is on the democrat side. Democrats always end up screwing up. Look at congress right now. NOTHING has gotten done. If you want high taxes, open borders and government healthcare then vote for these idiots. What is Obama going to change? He has never accomplished anything. Hillary is a nut job who has also never done anything right. Liberals are delusional and live in a fantasy world.
By LydiasDad
February 6, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this
Imagine the racist Cynthia Tucker writing another article about race. Way to keep the races divided Cynthia! Keeps you in business doesn’t it?
By Headhunter
February 6, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this
I want to know if there are anymore white conservatives like me who crossed over and voted for Obama either because the idea of Hillary in the White House is too much to stomach or maybe because the Republicans had nothing to offer.
By The Truth
February 6, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this
Headhunter, A true conservative would never vote for either Obama or Hillary. Period. You are no more a conservative than I am a muslim. A true conservative would either suck it up and vote for the republican or not vote at all. Nice try moron but your true Liberal colors are showing. Go back to Borders and finish reading Nietzsche.
By sansho1
February 6, 2008 5:13 PM | Link to this
I think proportional allotment is the way to go, as it gets closer to one-person-one-vote. As others have said, it also forces candidates to pay attention to areas they might otherwise ignore.
There are a lot of Republicans right now who wish that they weren’t doing winner-take-all, because McCain is walking away with all the delegates in states in which over 60% of the people voted for someone else. Talk about disenfranchisement….
By John
February 6, 2008 5:14 PM | Link to this
to the truth: Democrats (I consider myself one) are no more or no less with some racists among them. I will admit democrats are more hypocritical about the subject.
to gttim: You are right. Clinton got the most votes. People forget, there were THREE prime candidates when he ran.
By The Oddball
February 6, 2008 5:19 PM | Link to this
I’m a white conservative who crossed over and voted for Obama. A big part of the reason was “conservatives” like “The Truth,” who are very good at insults and name-calling, but not so good at governing. There is nothing recognizably “conservative” about the record of the Republican Party since 2000.