1. Proportional delegate awards. This is actually the least silly point of the three, since I can see the case against winner-take-all primaries. I happen to prefer winner-take-all, but that's just the evil free-marketer in me. Even if you don't do winner-take-all, though, what's the sense in saying that a 60%-40% victory means that the victor gets six delegates to the second place person's four? There's no plausible reason the balloting would ever be even something like 75-25, so the ratio should be at least square-versus-square or something.
2. Superdelegates. I get the feeling this Wikipedia entry gets frequently edited by party hacks on both sides. As far as I can tell, the GOP seats a handful of Republican National Committee big-wigs at the convention. Based on the best numbers I could find, though, it's a difference between being 5% of the delegates and being 20% of the delegates.
3. Implausibly draconian punishments. States like Florida and Michigan ran afoul of both parties by jumping the gun with their voting dates. The Republicans cut off half their delegates and life went on. Everyone understood this would happen and adjusted for it; the sanction was (if you ask me) just about right, since those voters still get some say.
The Democrats, on the other hand... take away all the delegates? They honestly expected everyone to believe that one, and honestly didn't foresee a big brouhaha when one candidate or another had a huge incentive to get them to go back on their word? That's like a clueless parent who makes a big show of grounding someone for six weeks and then can't follow through on any of it.
So I have a vested ideological interest in claiming to believe what I believe here, but my goodness: Not that this would ever be the deciding factor, but if you're going to pick who runs the country, shouldn't it be somewhat relevant whether they can run their own election without f'king the whole thing up?
Posted by Matt Bruce at February 17, 2008 11:33 PMFrom the CNN page on 2008 Primaries, the Special Note reads in part:
... There are currently 4,049 total delegates to the Democratic National Convention, including 3,253 pledged delegates and 796 superdelegates. ... There are currently 2,380 total delegates to the Republican National Convention, including 1,917 pledged delegates and 463 unpledged delegates.
Thus the figures are:
Democrats: 19.66% Superdelegates
Republicans: 19.45% Unpledged delegates
If you go to the Delegate explainer and the "Who are delegates?" tab it gives further explanation as to what these mean (that I can't find a way to link to or c/p from) but I can't tell that there's any significant difference. Neither are required to indicate a candidate preference beforehand.
There is more of a difference in the pledged delegates; the Republican delegates have to support the candidate they are elected/chosen to support but the Democratic delegates are not so bound.
Posted by: mountmccabe at February 18, 2008 11:09 AMThis, JFTR, should not be taken as me throwing my support behind the idea of super- or unpledged delegates. But it's not a Democrat vs Republican issue; they've both got bizarre systems set up.
Posted by: mountmccabe at February 18, 2008 11:14 AMNot that this would ever be the deciding factor, but if you're going to pick who runs the country, shouldn't it be somewhat relevant whether they can run their own election without f'king the whole thing up?
You really, really, really need to read about the Washington GOP caucuses. That clusterfuck of incompetence and lazy cheating by the party chair makes the DNC look like superheroes.
Posted by: M.S. at February 18, 2008 11:25 AMOy. Well, I won't be supporting a Washington Republican for national office any time soon (or for that matter a Washington Democrat, given the whole Rossi-Gregoire guber fiasco).
Since I'm lazy: Was New Mexico's train-wreck just on the Dem side or both sides?
Posted by: me at February 18, 2008 12:51 PMIt's just on the Dem side: my shining moment of voting for Ron Paul hasn't happened yet.
Calling Washington's GOP caucus (ugh) early is dumb, but still could at least turn out to match reality. Florida and Michigan, OTOH...
Posted by: ZD at February 18, 2008 10:34 PMIt's just weird to apply the competence argument to a game theory decision made by Howard Dean, who isn't even running for office, and not to, say, the last several budgets passed by the Republican Congress, the disbanding of the Iraqi army, Medicare Part D, or any number of issues that relate directly to governance. (This also goes for any policies Democrats carried out in office.)
Matt, I really don't expect you to blacklist any Republican living within the borders of Washington state from federal office because the chair of their state party is corrupt and incompetent. Blacklist Sen. Esser, yeah.
It's just weird to apply the competence argument to a game theory decision made by Howard Dean, who isn't even running for office, and not to, say, the last several budgets passed by the Republican Congress, the disbanding of the Iraqi army, the Harriet Miers nomination, Medicare Part D, or any number of issues that relate directly to governance. (This also goes for any policies Democrats carried out in office.)
Matt, I really don't expect you to blacklist any Republican living within the borders of Washington state from federal office because the chair of their state party is corrupt and incompetent. Blacklist Sen. Esser, yeah.
McCain failed to make the ballot in one solidly Republican district in Indiana:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/21/02516/2731/725/460995
Unbelievable! It looks like if you want basic competence, you'll have to sit out this election.
Posted by: M.S. at February 21, 2008 08:48 AM