>> >> >> The Pubs could have had a fight like that as well, had they had two >> >> >> candidates that had strengths in the different states.
>> >> >Not likely, given that roughly half of the GOP primaries are >> >> >winner-take-all.
>> >> That's interesting. If the Dems' primaries had been winner-take-all, >> >> I wonder what the delegate count would look like. My initial T-O-M >> >> guess is that it would still be close, but since Hillary won most of >> >> the big states, on second thought that might not be true.
>> >> Has anybody seen any analysis like that?
>> >There was a piece in Slate a few weeks back with just this. Clinton >> >would be way ahead in the delegate count. The writer was spinning >> >this as therefore Clinton should be nominated. The reasons why this >> >is blatantly stupid were laid out in small words in another article by >> >someone else a few days later.
>> >Richard R. Hershberger
>> I think you mean Wilentz's Salon and the article just says that if >> there were a winner-take-all system, that she'd have pretty much >> clinched by April (then the article was written).
>> Nowhere does it say that she *should* automatically get the nom, as >> the system is obviously not a winner-take-all one, but that she >> shouldn't be considered any sort of loser at that point.
>Read the headline. It wouldn't surprise me if Wilentz didn't write >that headline, but it sets the tone. And that tone is there: Wilentz >characterizes proportional representation as an "eccentricity" and >contrasts this with winner-take-all, which he characterizes as "one of >the central principles of American electoral politics". This is a >normative argument, not merely a description.
Hold on there, Richard...Wilentz did not make the claim you say originally said he did about Clinton and, yes, winner takes all really is one of the central principles of American electoral politics.
And the counter argument from DeLong was, in summation, as I quoted, rather blatantly stupid itself. You clipped all the good stuff I posted that pretty much pointed that out.
Boron Elgar (boron_el...@hotmail.com) wrote: > Hold on there, Richard...Wilentz did not make the claim you say > originally said he did about Clinton and, yes, winner takes all > really is one of the central principles of American electoral > politics.
MONEY TALKS!
-- Opus the Penguin I'm afraid I lied to you, you weren't my first, Dover was. - QueBarbara
>> Hold on there, Richard...Wilentz did not make the claim you say >> originally said he did about Clinton and, yes, winner takes all >> really is one of the central principles of American electoral >> politics.
>MONEY TALKS!
Yeah, but if the rest of that adage were true, we'd have a lot of really thin politicians.
> >> >> >> The Pubs could have had a fight like that as well, had they had two > >> >> >> candidates that had strengths in the different states.
> >> >> >Not likely, given that roughly half of the GOP primaries are > >> >> >winner-take-all.
> >> >> That's interesting. If the Dems' primaries had been winner-take-all, > >> >> I wonder what the delegate count would look like. My initial T-O-M > >> >> guess is that it would still be close, but since Hillary won most of > >> >> the big states, on second thought that might not be true.
> >> >> Has anybody seen any analysis like that?
> >> >There was a piece in Slate a few weeks back with just this. Clinton > >> >would be way ahead in the delegate count. The writer was spinning > >> >this as therefore Clinton should be nominated. The reasons why this > >> >is blatantly stupid were laid out in small words in another article by > >> >someone else a few days later.
> >> >Richard R. Hershberger
> >> I think you mean Wilentz's Salon and the article just says that if > >> there were a winner-take-all system, that she'd have pretty much > >> clinched by April (then the article was written).
> >> Nowhere does it say that she *should* automatically get the nom, as > >> the system is obviously not a winner-take-all one, but that she > >> shouldn't be considered any sort of loser at that point.
> >Read the headline. It wouldn't surprise me if Wilentz didn't write > >that headline, but it sets the tone. And that tone is there: Wilentz > >characterizes proportional representation as an "eccentricity" and > >contrasts this with winner-take-all, which he characterizes as "one of > >the central principles of American electoral politics". This is a > >normative argument, not merely a description.
> Hold on there, Richard...Wilentz did not make the claim you say > originally said he did about Clinton and, yes, winner takes all really > is one of the central principles of American electoral politics.
> And the counter argument from DeLong was, in summation, as I quoted, > rather blatantly stupid itself. You clipped all the good stuff I > posted that pretty much pointed that out.
Winner-take-all on the state level is perhaps a central principle American presidential politics, but we don't see, for example, a state's House of Representatives delegation chosen this way. If we are going to toss about the word "eccentric" I would apply it to the electoral college system.
The thing is, if we take the article as purely descriptive, and not normative, then what we have is a mildly interesting exercise in trivia: a game of what-if, but poorly designed since it pretends you could change the system while assuming people wouldn't adapt to this different system.
It would be possible to have a reasonable discussion about electability looking at each state, and this discussion of course would take into account the winner-take-all system. But in that discussion, you can't point at some solidly Democratic state that Clinton won and claim that because she won it, McCain would win it running against Obama. At least you can't do this if you don't want to induce giggles in your readers.
As I wrote above, it is possible that the headline did not accurately reflect Wiletz's intend. I believe it does, but I acknowledge that reasonable persons can disagree on this. It is possible that Wiletz meant nothing beyond a trivia game. But at the very least, it is reasonable for a reader to include the headline in interpreting the article.
>> Hold on there, Richard...Wilentz did not make the claim you say >> originally said he did about Clinton and, yes, winner takes all >> really is one of the central principles of American electoral >> politics.
>>> >> >> The Pubs could have had a fight like that as well, had they had two >>> >> >> candidates that had strengths in the different states.
>>> >> >Not likely, given that roughly half of the GOP primaries are >>> >> >winner-take-all.
>>> >> That's interesting. If the Dems' primaries had been winner-take-all, >>> >> I wonder what the delegate count would look like. My initial T-O-M >>> >> guess is that it would still be close, but since Hillary won most of >>> >> the big states, on second thought that might not be true.
>>> >> Has anybody seen any analysis like that?
>>> >There was a piece in Slate a few weeks back with just this. Clinton >>> >would be way ahead in the delegate count. The writer was spinning >>> >this as therefore Clinton should be nominated. The reasons why this >>> >is blatantly stupid were laid out in small words in another article by >>> >someone else a few days later.
>>> >Richard R. Hershberger
>>> I think you mean Wilentz's Salon and the article just says that if >>> there were a winner-take-all system, that she'd have pretty much >>> clinched by April (then the article was written).
>>> Nowhere does it say that she *should* automatically get the nom, as >>> the system is obviously not a winner-take-all one, but that she >>> shouldn't be considered any sort of loser at that point.
>>Read the headline. It wouldn't surprise me if Wilentz didn't write >>that headline, but it sets the tone. And that tone is there: Wilentz >>characterizes proportional representation as an "eccentricity" and >>contrasts this with winner-take-all, which he characterizes as "one of >>the central principles of American electoral politics". This is a >>normative argument, not merely a description.
>Hold on there, Richard...Wilentz did not make the claim you say >originally said he did about Clinton and, yes, winner takes all really >is one of the central principles of American electoral politics.
>And the counter argument from DeLong was, in summation, as I quoted, >rather blatantly stupid itself. You clipped all the good stuff I >posted that pretty much pointed that out.
Regardless of the headline, the first Salon piece did show the computation that I was looking for. Thanks for posting it, Boron, and thanks to Richard for identifying it initially.
I don't personally find Winner Take All to be a compelling method for allotting delegates, any more than the electoral college system, but that's beyond what I was asking.
(This reminds me... I just finished watching the HBO series on John Adams, and among other things, it really points out just how fallible and flawed the thinking of the "founding fathers" was. But somehow, nowadays any reference to "the founding fathers" seems to automatically impart reverent, God-like wisdom to them. It's clear they were just making it up as they were going along. It's too bad that they came up with this ridiculousElectoral College thing, among other stupidities.)
-- M C Hamster "Big Wheel Keep on Turning" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
> I don't personally find Winner Take All to be a compelling method for > allotting delegates, any more than the electoral college system, but > that's beyond what I was asking.
I don't mind the electoral college. It's the caucus stuff that is too wierd for me. It's a way for a small group of dedicated fanatics to seize control. This year 11 states had caucuses. The rest had elections. http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/2008_Pres_Prim_ByState.htm
> (This reminds me... I just finished watching the HBO series on John > Adams, and among other things, it really points out just how fallible > and flawed the thinking of the "founding fathers" was. But somehow, > nowadays any reference to "the founding fathers" seems to > automatically impart reverent, God-like wisdom to them. It's clear > they were just making it up as they were going along. It's too bad > that they came up with this ridiculousElectoral College thing, among > other stupidities.)
The genius of the founding fathers was not that each faction held out until a perfect constitution was created, but that they compromised and went with the best one they could agree upon.
I wish more politicians would rediscover the lost art of compromise to move forward for the common good.
Don K <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote: > The genius of the founding fathers was not that each faction held out > until a perfect constitution was created, but that they compromised > and went with the best one they could agree upon.
> I wish more politicians would rediscover the lost art of compromise > to move forward for the common good.
Why would you want a bunch of flip-floppers and cut and runners? Everybody knows that if you ever said anything, you have to stand by it forever.
-- I remember in elementary school having monkey bars over a concrete slab. Great incentive to stay on. -- misty-eyed recollections from Tim W
S. Checker (spam...@gmail.com) wrote: > Don K <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote:
>> The genius of the founding fathers was not that each faction held >> out until a perfect constitution was created, but that they >> compromised and went with the best one they could agree upon.
>> I wish more politicians would rediscover the lost art of >> compromise to move forward for the common good.
> Why would you want a bunch of flip-floppers and cut and runners? > Everybody knows that if you ever said anything, you have to stand > by it forever.
I used to disagree with that vocally. But now I see that it's correct.
-- Opus the Penguin I've known a few middle-aged guys who smoke pot regularly, and "a permanent state of duh-ness" is an eloquent descriptor. - Veronique
>S. Checker (spam...@gmail.com) wrote: >> Don K <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote:
>>> The genius of the founding fathers was not that each faction held >>> out until a perfect constitution was created, but that they >>> compromised and went with the best one they could agree upon.
>>> I wish more politicians would rediscover the lost art of >>> compromise to move forward for the common good.
>> Why would you want a bunch of flip-floppers and cut and runners? >> Everybody knows that if you ever said anything, you have to stand >> by it forever.
>I used to disagree with that vocally. But now I see that it's correct.
Um, Opus, didn't you flip-flop on your support for GWB?
-- Please reply to: | President Bush is promoting Peace and Democracy pciszek at panix dot com | in the Middle East by selling Weapons to the Autoreply is disabled | King of Saudi Arabia.
