Here's a question. Who here thinks Democratic Primaries should be winner-take-all???

[SKKY]

Poll question: Here's a question. Who here thinks Democratic Primaries should be winner-take-all???

I'm starting to think they should be.

[maddiejoan]

1. Nahhhh

I like being in the Democratic Party instead.

[bilgewaterbill]

8. Need I remind you that the current occupant of the People's

White House got there via winner-take-all?

[maddiejoan]

10. He's a Republican

[bilgewaterbill]

12. And a result of the winner-take-all system.

Let the people decide.

[maddiejoan]

14. That's not letting the people decide.

[bilgewaterbill]

16. OK. I'm convinced.

[maddiejoan]

17. apparently

you don't know the difference between the GOP and the Democratic Party

[bilgewaterbill]

23. I was referring to the general election of 2000.

Our winner-take-all electoral college system got us what we have now. It had nothing to do with the GOP. It was the system. If you wish to argue our system vs. theirs, okay. I still prefer ours. But I wasn't talking about their primary selection process. If you want to continue inferring that I'm stupid, that's your right. I'll live.

[question everything]

21. And a result of a system where the popular votes is not the final say? (nt)

[Kittycat]

2. Absolutely not.

I think we just need to scrap the SDs.

[Rick Myers]

3. The whole thing should be compressed into a few weeks, period!

Every state votes in February, on all on the first of March.

[SKKY]

11. Someone made the point that, if that were the case, it would be...

...Clinton v. Guiliani.

[joshcryer]

4. I'd rather they just be closed primaries, personally.

[rpannier]

6. You got me on board with that

Republikkans in Republikkan primaries

Democrats in Democratic Primaries

ONLY!!!!!!!!!!

[RL3AO]

15. Yeah. Lets give Iowa and New Hampshire a big "fuck you"

You know, those states that are 40% independent?

[nonconformist]

24. They can either pick a party, or run an Independent... they can vote for whoever they want in the GE

[skipos]

5. Hell no.

I think Romney had 3 million votes, McCain 3.5 million votes, whenr Romney dropped out. The winner take all shit made Romney look way further behind than he actually was.

[AZBlue]

7. I'd like to see all states in the GE also give proportional votes.

[Contrary1]

9. I would be satisfied just to have all primaries held

within the same week. Indiana's is in May. What's the point?

[BzaDem]

13. I think it should be proportional, but not insane like it is now.

Best scenario: Popular vote winner nationwide wins the nomination.

Second best: Each state gets delegates, and they are awarded proportionally according to the popular vote in each state. I.e. if the popular vote is 55-45, then one candidate gets 55% of the delegates and the other gets 45%.

The idea that one delegate in one state represents 15,000 voters and another delegate in another state represents less than 1000 is totally undemocratic.

[surfin]

18. What would it look like now if it was

If we had winner take all, wonder who would be in front now.

Anyone know?

[MojoMojoMojo]

19. Because the big blue states would have more effect on the outcome

Who cares who wins the little red states.

[question everything]

20. Hell NO! And we should abolish the Texas two-steps and other

non-democratic instruments where not every vote is equal.

Haven't we learned from 2000 when Gore won the popular votes but lost the "delegates?"

This is what we have seen in Nevada and perhaps in other states and this is what we may see in Texas where a black vote is equal twice as a Latino one.

Last, let's keep primaries and caucuses open to registered Democrats only. Let's not let Republicans determine who our nominee is.

And while there - let's abolish the caucuses.

Primaries only, by Democrats only. Democrats determine the nominee.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. Mixed. I'd give 25% or 33% or 50% of a states delegates to the winner, proportion the rest

Otherwise this will happen every time we have two good candidates