number of delegates proportional to total X chromosomes divided by collective IQ.

Everyday is Backasswards Day in Billaryland.

The author knows it. This is just provocation.

The lynch pin of his "what ifs" arguments rests on the weak assumption that Obama doesn't really have a commanding lead in the popular vote tallies because of some "stealth campaign" by Obama activists in Michigan and some advertising in Florida. Remove those assumptions and it all goes kapunk.

The prof wants a winner takes all to follow the general election method. But he DOES NOT want it just like the general election really, he likes the fantasy that Clinton lead in the polls in December 2007 and that she road those early polls and Obama's relative lack of face time into NY and CA. If the prof wants a winner take all truly in the general election model lets have every State vote on the SAME day - like the general election - but it must be in the late Spring.

Considering that when Obama has a chance to have time in a State his number pop up (today one poll has him tied in PA) if we re-vote CA and NY and TX today or in a month Obama probably would win.

But that wouldn't work for the prof. He'd rather protect Clinton from herself and her wild mismanagement spending spree on consultants and buffets and First Class plan rides in her assumptive march that she'd be coronated by Super Tuesday.

That's sweet, but is it constructive to play these 'if only the Confederates had machine guns' games proposing a fantastic twist of the rules blended with past results based on the existing system to create every advantage Clinton's way?

It's embarrassing and weak.

Shouldn't the headline be:

"If Clinton were ahead, then the system would make sense."

I mean, that's what you really mean, isn't it? It doesn't really matter for Salon what the system is, or might be--as long as HRC would win?

Not since the 19th Century has anyone described the Electoral College as "making sense."

A system which truly made sense would be one that dispensed with caucuses altogether, had primaries, and counted the cumulative popular vote, giving the nomination to whoever had the most votes.

I'd love to see this fix made for the 2012 election, as well as the National Popular Vote movement success so that everybody's vote will could equally regardless of where people live.

I couldn't agree more with this article. Since Obama is getting a free pass with the press this is unfair and wrong. I will not vote for him in November if he wins like that and I know a lot of my friends will do the same. It is after all what the democratic party stands for. I said from day one as a die hard democrat that if the elections are fair and square I will vote for the best candidate but as of right now it is impossible. The press is after Hillary every minutes and Obama nothing it is so unfair that we all know if it was the other way around they will scream. My satisfaction is if nothing is done is that he will loose big time in November and Hillary will be vendicated so do something before it's too late.

with an argument for a winner-take-all primary. I don't have a problem with an argument that claims FL and MI have been "disenfranchised." However, those two arguments do not play well together. A winner-take-all primary, like our electoral college, disenfranchises almost half the voters in the country. If you're in the 49% who 'lost the vote' in your stae, your vote counts for nothing.

To those who claim that Obama has 'thwarted' efforts to get the delegates from FL and MI seated, you're not paying attention. His campaign worked on numerous compromises that would have allowed the delegates to be split and seated according to a variety of formulas, all of which Clinton opposed. He was opposed to a total re-do because much of his support amongst independents would be 'disenfranchised' because they already voted in the Republican primaries (the 'real' ones), and would not be allowed to vote again by law.

First of all a winner-take-all primary system doesn't make sense, even if the general elections are winner-take-all. But that is even besides the point. The results were based on proportional delegation. If it wasn't the campaigning would have been different. No candidate would spend any significant money on states that were clear cut winners or losers and all the close elections could have gone either way.

Lets go back to the winner-take-all argument. Even if Clinton would beat a winner-take-all primary contest against Obama among democrates, even given the fact that Clinton won big states, it doesn't mean Obama would have done worse than Clinton against McCain. I'd even contest that McCain would win the independent vote and Hillary being his opponent would even align the conservative vote behind him. Add the fact that new democratic votes Obama brings in would be lost and Clinton can't win the delegation without huge controversy (super delegates overturning a substantial delegate lead) I'd say McCain could sweep the election with ease if it's going to be Clinton vs McCain. Obama will have a hard time as well, but I don't think he will do worse than Clinton.

This is possibly the most embarrassing article yet in Salon's coverage of this election. It takes the "Only big states matter" argument and wraps it in the Republican's "winner takes all" primary system.

A couple quick points-

1. There is a reason Mark Penn is gone, and it has a lot to do with the "Only big states matter" strategy.

2. There is a reason me and most people on this site are Democrats. We don't want to play by the Republican's rules of winner takes all. We do not support dictators, robber barons, or neocon fascism. We don't want to be like them.

3. Here is the point that seems to constantly get missed in these sorts of articles- Party elections are not federal elections. Pretty much anything goes. We have fifty states, and each one does it differently. Some go for caucuses, some for primaries, some allow anyone on the ballot, some make it next to impossible unless you have lots of money. Each state figures out how they want to do it, with some minimal guidelines from the party. And the party itself sets its own guidelines, they are not federal law. This is not one man one vote, it is a ragtag amalgamation, and it is not perfect, but it is a system with rules. Whether you think they are fair or not does not matter (see MI and FL). This race is too far along to change the rules.