Mitt Romney for President,
About Us
Contact Us
Donate to Mitt Romney Campaign

Mitt Romney on the Issues
Videos Mitt Romney
Help Mitt Romney

Wednesday, January 30, 2008
posted by Mike | 5:45 PM | permalink
Since last evening I have been puzzling over the fact that McCain, after winning 36% of the votes in Florida, will get ALL 57 convention delegates and Mitt will get none, despite receiving 31% of the vote. I know that Florida is a "winner take all" state, a principle commented on by Bob Novak, who wrote of Mitt's loss in Florida and concluded where things go from here:
The winner-take-all method (by district or statewide) used by Republicans, in contrast to the Democrats' proportional representation, makes McCain a commanding favorite for the nomination.
Can someone please explain why "winner take all" can be considered to be a justifiable practice, even in a representative democracy? The method chosen by each state is of course a decision made by the various political parties, but I fail to see how the concept tracks with commonly accepted democratic principles. My undergraduate degree is in political science, but the practice still makes no sense to me.


Mike B.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • take all?
  • DiggWinner take all?
  • Fark:Winner take all?
  • Furl:Winner take all?
  • Ma.gnolia:Winner take all?
  • Netscape:Winner take all?
  • NewsVine:Winner take all?
  • Reddit:Winner take all?
  • Slashdot:Winner take all?
  • StumbleUpon:Winner take all?
  • TailRank:Winner take all?
  • Technorati:Winner take all?
  • YahooMyWeb:Winner take all?

Technorati Tags: |

If I understand correctly FL went winner take all because of being stripped of delegates for moving its primary before Feb 5.

Before that the larger total was awarded proportional to vote or using congressional districts, I'm not sure which. However several other states next week are winner take all also.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at January 30, 2008 at 6:22 PM  

"...Can someone please explain why "winner take all" can be considered to be a justifiable practice, even in a representative democracy?..."

I agree. Even if Mitt had come out with the win, I disagree with the practice. This isn't like the Dems saying Bush "stole" 2000 because of the electoral college and then "praying for Ohio" in 2004. McCain stole nothing, but I say it's time to change all winner-take-all states to proportional primaries.

I don't have a problem with it if everyone understands the rules beforehand. What I have a problem with is that McCain is a gross prevaricator.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at January 30, 2008 at 9:37 PM  

mitt let MCCAIN push hes button don't let hem don't feed in to hem that what he want. stand tall hold your head up and talk to the common people let them know you care and want to make a difference in their life .that you care . let us know you are ready and able to lead a nation you can do it stand TALL WITH GOD AND FAITH YOU HAVE IT DON'T GET LOST IN THE BICKING THAT MAKE YOU LIKE THEM GO MITT

I agree. I think winner take all is undemocratic. The delegate count is supposed to represent the voice of the people, and in winner take all scenarios it just plain doesn't. The GOP needs to get a life and fix this problem asap.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at January 31, 2008 at 1:10 AM  

winner take all means the Republican party will choose its candidate sooner than the Dems with representative delegate awarding because one candidate may be obviously ahead after only a few states whereas the Dems must wait until later states to see how the delegate count is swinging. This means the GOP can rally around their nominee and prepare for the general sooner than the Dems.

Sign up for MyManMitt
Enter your email address:

RSS Feed
Mitt Romney Facebook MyManMitt
Mitt Romney YouTube

Copyright 2007