Just to keep the discussion civil lets assume two candidates A and B. A is the candidate with the greatest name recognition and he has the largest pool of large donors i.e. can raise a lot of money in a hurry. B is the candidate with better ideas but she is not as well known as candidate A nor does she have a large Rolodex of donors. Would we all agree that a system of proportional representation gives the less well known candidate a better chance of being nominated? Is that not what we would want our nominating process to be about? The reason the Republicans have a winner take all system is that they dislike outsiders (just see what they did to McCain in 2000) and prefer coronations to elections.

And this article was published because....

I do think the statistic as to what this race would be like if it were winner-take-all is an interesting one. But the idea that somehow, for the purposes of party nomination, that "Winner Take All" makes more SENSE is nothing but a bias reflective of Wilenz's own political preferences. Many conservative Republicans argued that the proportional representation system made more sense when Winner Take All enabled McCain to beat up on his conservative opponents by winning California and northern progressive states and putting the race away early. Just as much sour grapes, of course, but still a perspective dictated by the outcome you desire. In general elections, of course winner takes all. But these aren't general elections. They're designed to create the sense of inclusion, energize voters, ensure that diverse voices get heard, and help generate unity in August when the real election takes place. After all, in the olden days they didn't even bother with primaries. It may not work the way they had hoped, but that's what was intended. Wilenz is a Clinton hack who should be more frustrated by the fact that she has run a shockingly disorganized campaign and has proven to be a not-so-impressive candidate. But, in what appears to be the new Clinton style, he prefers to cry that the rules are unfair. And of course, since little is less appealing than a whiny candidate, these kinds of articles do more to illustrate precisely why Clinton is losing than they do to make the point the author wants to make.

While I understand that eveyone involved with the Democratic primaries are trying to find new ways of analyzing the situation, applying a new set of rules to the game mid-way through is hazardous and does not reflect the current situation.

I want to make two points about this. First, if the rules were different, i.e., if it was a winner-take-all system, then the game would have been played differently. Obama would have used his finances very differently at key points, concentrated efforts on different areas, as would have Clinton, and the results would have been different. In the revised game, Obama would probably have thrown a few million more at Nevada and would have put no resources at all into New York. Maybe he would have taken a different strategy, forcing states to be competitive that otherwise wouldn't have been and forced Hillary to fund other places, thereby running down her campaign cash. Heck, if it was a winner-take-all system, he may have had more momentum from Iowa because Hillary would have had no points for third. The campaign might already be over. The reality is, with different rules, he could still have performed well, perhaps even better.

I would like to add one addendum to that, however. If there was a single primary day where Obama would have had to split his money strategically across numerous states with a lot of opponents, Hillary would likely have won because she is the more recognizable candidate. If you recall, Iowa was important to help bolster Obama with the African-American demographic that has traditionally supported him because many were unsure whether or not a black man could be elected, a plausible concern after the candidacies of Sharpton and Jackson.

The system is also important in its present state in that it reflects the candidate who most inspires districts to turn out for elections, something that will help this fall when people show up to vote for a presidential candidate and also vote for other democrats from their district. This is part of the DNC's plan to solidify their lead in congress. In fact, with how few Democratic seats are up for reelection this year in the senate, it could hurt the parties prospect to not have districts organized and excited about voting.

Second, it really does not make sense, with the current situation, to include the votes of Michigan and Florida. With the present rules, their votes don't count. This is because of decisions the states made to defy DNC rules. Because these were not widely contested (Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan) and turnout was likely affected, and Obama would have likely faired much better than he did if it was contested. Clinton could only have her chances improved by this as she was the better known candidate and was more likely to win any state in which others did not campaign. By changing the rules midway, it seems that it is only for the purpose of accommodating Hillary. This is not how a democracy is run.

The analysis that Hillary could beat McCain because she performs better in larger states is an interesting proposition, but one that is unlikely to make a difference. I have a feeling that California and New York will both handily go to democrats, regardless of who won them in the primary, and I seriously doubt that Hillary will bring Texas into play nationally, as it has been a haven for Republicans on the national level. There are also a lot of polls that indicate Obama may bring some southern states into play, like Virginia and Georgia, because of their large African-America population and their dissatisfaction with the Republican Party. If you look at Clinton’s performance, she does not seem as likely to bring these states into play. In the end though, both the primaries and the current polls matter little for the general election and the situation can change quickly before then. I think it is this kind of talk, however, that one candidate or the other is inherently flawed based on electoral maps that could fundamentally undermine the Democratic Party in November, regardless of the nominee.

I also think it is sad that Obama’s campaign is slighted for their attempts to adhere to and uphold the rules. Obama has spoken more about ways to make our democracy healthier than any other candidate. While it is not a part of his platform, he has talked about the need to do away with the single-district, winner-take-all electoral system because it promotes gerrymandering and prevents the full range of ideas from being debated during any given election. Of course, it can’t be a part of his campaign because the states are the ones who decide these rules. But at least he is willing yo talk about this kind of substantive change that could alter the electoral process.