Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (67358)	5/21/2008 12:20:13 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 544136

Here is blurb from a political scientist with one POV on the Democratic primary system. It is more subjective than analytical but I haven't turned up a good article on the origins of the system yet: "Even the most seemingly absurd feature of the way Democrats select their nominee has had positive results: the allocation of delegates by proportional representation. Before this election, Beltway consensus held that allocating delegates this way was a recipe for disaster. Just a month or two ago, it seemed as if the Republicans had been blessed by their commitment to a winner-take-all process: They settled quickly on their nominee and sat back to watch as the Democratic Party's ultra-democratic procedures led to seeming chaos and indecision. But the earlier choice for the Republicans has not proven a blessing, and the delayed one for the Democrats has not been a curse. Even with McCain as the presumptive nominee, there were Republican as well as Democratic primaries last week -- and Republicans not named McCain won 24 percent of the vote in North Carolina and 23 percent in Indiana. Traditionally, Republicans may not love their candidate, but they unite behind him. Conservatives, however, may well not rush to McCain this time. There is also no proportional delegate consolation prize for the votes of losers in the GOP's winner-take-all system, which is bound to exacerbate Republican unease with McCain. For the Democrats, proportional representation, rather than producing chaos, underscored the party's commitment to inclusion. Democrats are more likely to speak about equality, social justice and fairness in election campaigns than Republicans, and proportional representation is more compatible with those themes than a winner-take-all method. We live in democratic times in which people get to choose the churches to which they belong and the television stations they want to watch. Under such conditions, a party that opens itself up to its members invests them in its decisions -- not only in the election coming up this fall but in future contests as well. More people became Democrats in 2008 than became Republicans, and more of them were younger. Exciting and open contests can do that sort of thing."

To: ManyMoose who wrote (67358)	5/21/2008 3:10:35 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 544136

>>Nobody has yet answered my question about WHY the democrat party structured its primary the way it did, which seems convoluted by any measure.<< MM - None of us has answered your question because we don't know the answer. If I may speak for my fellow Democrats on this issue, I will say that we all find the system baffling and overly complex. You won't find anyone here defending the system as it exists, nor will you find anyone who can really explain why it is this way. It's important to remember that each individual state party sets the rules for their own primary or caucus or whatever. I'd say the best explanation of why some of the states have such screwy systems (I'm looking at you, Texas) is that the Democratic party officials there must have been drunk when they designed their systems. ;-) - Allen