CLEARLY ANY SYSTEM REPUBLICANS USE MUST BE BETTER, RIGHT?

This story, in addition to having the most obvious headline I've seen yet this campaign, should be frustrating for a lot of Democrats. Bill Clinton is now alleging that it's because Democrats like to do democratic things like represent voters proportionately that his wife hasn’t won the primary already. If the Democrats had the Republican system, she's already be the nominee:

"If we were under the Republican system, which is more like the Electoral College, she'd have a 300-delegate lead here," he said. "I mean, Senator McCain is already the nominee because they chose a system to produce that result, and we don't have a nominee here, because the Democrats chose a system that prevents that result."

Yes, it would appear as if he’s saying the Republican primary system is superior and less disenfranchising than the Democratic system. The Democratic system, which was revamped in 2006, awards delegates proportionally to any candidate who receives more than 15 percent. The Republicans still operate under a system in which many states are winner-take-all statewide, like New York and Florida, or district-level winner-take-all, like California. This means that those who voted for the candidate who didn’t carry the majority essentially are not represented in the delegate count at all. I think we can all agree that both systems are unecessarily complex and fairly screwed up. But Clinton’s got to be kidding. The Democratic delegate allocation is set up precisely so that people’s votes are actually represented fairly and systematically. And if you don’t like that, I guess you could always try running as a Republican.

--Kate Sheppard

You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)

Connect
, after login or registration your account will be connected.
Advertisement