An examination of delegate allocation

**DJ Ms. White** · 03-07-12, 12:23 AM

Tldr: the system is designed to let Romney win
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...publican-story

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk

**Bubbasam** · 03-08-12, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

Tldr: the system is designed to let Romney win
NBC Politics - Analysis: Romney now boasts 3 times the delegates of Gingrich or Santorum

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk

Not sure how you, or the people in the article figure that. Romney kind of gets the short end of the stick by having won 14 of the 22 states, and if he would be given all the delegates from each state won he would have 477 delegates instead of the 421 he has now. Newt would have 101 instead of the 107 he has now, and Santorum would also get the short end of the stick by having 223 instead of the 181 he has now. I'm all for an analysis that would make sense of you and the articles' claim, but they seem to be saying that a winner take all format(which we've had more in the past) would favor the other candidates, and give them a chance to come back. They even say in the article "They've (the RNC) moved away from the more traditional system in which the winner of a congressional district takes most or all of that district's delegates — a winner-take-all approach that has led to the nomination's having been decided after just a few big primaries and caucuses in previous cycles." Then they say by doing this "it's the kind of math that makes it harder for a non-front-running candidate to make a big leap in delegates, which he could do by winning an upset in a big winner-take-all state." So..........if the front running candidate (Romney) has less delegates because of the new system, wouldn't that indicate the opposite of what you are saying?

**DJ Ms. White** · 03-08-12, 07:51 PM

Consider the states with the more parliamentary distribution that the RNC is pushing such as Georgia. In Georgia, Newt won by a land slide. Mitt came in second. In the past, this would have meant that Newt would have gotten all of the delegates, which would have greatly increased his count, but instead he got only 40% of the delegates. Romney, who only got about 20% of the voters' support still received a good amount of the delegates. So, even though he lost, it doesn't mean much.

Not that I'm complaining about Romney winning (I'd rather him than Santorum or Newt), but I think the RNC who I have strongly supported in the past is getting pretty underhanded. Kind of like how the Irish voting machine used any means necessary to make sure JFK beat Nixon.

**Bubbasam** · 03-09-12, 10:28 AM

Maybe I'm not seeing what you are seeing.
I up in the air as to why the RNC has changed the system in some states, but to me it seems like it is hurting Romney more than it is helping him. Anyway, I doubt any Repub candidate will have much of a chance in November.

**DJ Ms. White** · 03-09-12, 11:14 AM

They might have a chance if they can stop the petty infighting, repair their image especially with women, etc. Of course, the chances of that happening are slim to none.

**SmokenScion** · 03-09-12, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Bubbasam

Maybe I'm not seeing what you are seeing.
I up in the air as to why the RNC has changed the system in some states, but to me it seems like it is hurting Romney more than it is helping him. Anyway, I doubt any Repub candidate will have much of a chance in November.

Where are your Facts? Newt wins Georgia, by popular vote, yet the RNC gives Romney more delagates to more Properly reflect Popular vote? What? Rigged!

**Bubbasam** · 03-09-12, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

Where are your Facts? Newt wins Georgia, by popular vote, yet the RNC gives Romney more delagates to more Properly reflect Popular vote? What? Rigged!

And Romney wins 14 states outright and he has to share delegates in 10 of those states with non-winning candidates....Only in Florida, Arizona, Idaho, and Massachusetts did he win all of the delegates.
Here...Republican Delegate Count - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com
Sift through that and feel the pain of your inaccuracy. You give one state that favors Newt, yet there are 10 states that DOESN'T favor Romney. "Rigged" is not an accurate description of what is happening. I really could give a rats ass who wins the Repub nomination, but don't try to spread slanted information just to devalue the other party's methods.

**Red_Lizard2** · 03-12-12, 01:18 AM

They should use proportional (I did up my own system that is straight proportional, rounded down to the nearest delegate, with the leftovers going to the winner). I've never liked the idea that 35.3% voting for you=the entire state loves you, wants to suck your dick, etc. etc. That isn't even majority rule, as it means 64.6% of the voters voted against you, its more minority rule (unless you win 50%+1). Thus winner take all is even dumber, in my opinion.

You either do all proportional, just straight up "you get 40% of the delegates, you get 20%, etc. etc.) or you have to do a run-off, eliminated until someone gets to 50%+1. I think Proportional is easier, and more fair. You might have to lower the number to win, but that isn't going to kill.

And, in fairness, I think the electoral college should be proportional as well, for the same reason.

**Fovezer** · 03-12-12, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

And, in fairness, I think the electoral college should be proportional as well, for the same reason.

How about we just abolish the Electoral College all together and elect based on popular vote? It's absurd that a candidate can win the popular vote but still lose the election.

**CivilWars** · 03-12-12, 09:27 AM

Why not just do away with elections all together? Only about half of the citizens vote, and I would bet most of those have no clue what they are actually voting for. I say we just have volunteers/applicants for each position, then have some type of battle royal to pick a winner. It could be a physical challenge, or if we want something more mentally taxing a Jeopardy tournament.

Only half kidding.