Proportional allocation is the best thing since sliced bread

[George_Bonanza]

It greatly disturbs me how some in Hillary's camp have daydreamed about a utopian process where it's a Republican-style winner-take-all system. Don't they realize that this will make it extremely difficult for any "non-traditional" (aka not a straight Christian white old male) candidate to ever break through? Just look at the Republican race: John McCain built an overwhelming lead over Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney despite the fact that the two challengers were still quite popular alternatives to McCain. However, due to razor-thin wins in states like Georgia, McCain won in a "landslide", and in the end, the salt-of-the-earth preacher (Huckabee) and the Mormon (Romney) lost out to the old white war hero. Gee, what a surprise, huh? That's the kind of system I want the Democrats to adopt as well!

There's a damn good reason why Jesse Jackson wanted either the adoption or the enshrinement (I'm not sure what the old Democratic system was) of proportional allocation rules as part of his "severance package" in 1988: he knew that one day, it would help non-traditional candidates by lessening the influence of established political machines. And I believe the anti-proportional people in Hillary's camp are being very selfish and short-sighted, because it's not going to be an everyday occurence that a female candidate is going to be the heavy establishment favourite.

[stray cat]

1. Agreed - its much closer to a measure of popular vote

[Oregone]

3. It may actually be a better measure of the popular will of the peope than the "popular vote"

[Oregone]

2. I just can't understand why we don't do it at a national level

[stray cat]

4. It would be a much better measure of support and force them to campaign in all states

[Oregone]

6. An intresting thought about where people would campaign

Imagine if the polls were 49 to 49 in a state like California. While they would campaign there (state-wide), millions of dollars may only amount to a few percentage points in the overall polls (and final result). In a winner take all system, they would net 55 EVs from those millions (high ROI), but in a proportional allocated system, millions of dollars may only net a few more EVs (low ROI). But it would follow that any state-wide focused campaigning would have a diminished ROI in this system. OTOH, population centers (cities) of any state would become even more sought after (hence, helping minorities or liberal candidates do much better, being they have more urban appeal).

For example, a candidate like Obama may have no chance of a majority in Georgia, but could be greatly favored amongst Atlana residents (who, being in a city, are somewhat easy to target via city based media). He would be able to squeeze a lot of EVs out of a state that Democrats would get none from previously, without having to spend a fortune (high ROI).

It makes me wonder, does this system now stay in place due to people who see how a change would greatly impact their ability to maintain power? If the deciding factor shifts from regional states to big cities everywhere, you would see much more viable liberal and minority candidates.

Finally, is that why the Democratic primary has shaped out the way it has (being so different in structure), and produced the first viable black and female presidential candidates? Is it safe to assume our process can provide candidates that can compete in an entirely different process?

[On the Road]

5. Historically,

it was a way of forming and maintaining the union by pacifying small states who were worried the big states would dominate. Now it's more likely to have a perverse effect by undermining the will of the people -- at least if you're a Democrat.