Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the Republicans made a mistake when they followed the Democrats into changing the primary rules to "proportional representation" as opposed to the old winner takes all primaries. It used to be that a well qualified candidate like Romney could win the early primary states and sweep the delegates. The losers got nothing. The benefit of this is that the fringe candidates like Bachmann, Paul, Parry and Newt would be forced out of the race early on and allow Romney to train all his fire on Obama. The new system, which awards delegates on the basis of votes cast, just encourages candidates to hold on and cut each other up while the true enemy, Obama, just sits and smiles while we fight each other.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,407,670 times
Reputation: 2394
Proportional representation is in line with all the writings of our nation's forefathers. This way, the corporations have to work that much harder at buying off the politicians and gives the common folk a shot at true representation.
Proportional representation is in line with all the writings of our nation's forefathers. This way, the corporations have to work that much harder at buying off the politicians and gives the common folk a shot at true representation.
I agree that proportional representation allows candidates that are not financial powerhouses a better shot at being competetive.
A winner takes all concept allows a zillionaire candidate to unload megamoney into the early primaries and hope to kill off any opposition through a couple early victories. By allowing other candidates to capture a corresponding share of convention delegates based on their percentage of the vote, it does make more difficult to buy the nomination.
It also allows voters more time to really get a solid readout on all the candidates and maybe prevent the mistake of rushing into selection of a candidate that they would later regret.
I think the Republicans made a mistake when they followed the Democrats into changing the primary rules to "proportional representation" as opposed to the old winner takes all primaries. It used to be that a well qualified candidate like Romney could win the early primary states and sweep the delegates. The losers got nothing. The benefit of this is that the fringe candidates like Bachmann, Paul, Parry and Newt would be forced out of the race early on and allow Romney to train all his fire on Obama. The new system, which awards delegates on the basis of votes cast, just encourages candidates to hold on and cut each other up while the true enemy, Obama, just sits and smiles while we fight each other.
I have mixed feelings, hubby would agree with you.
Nita
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
