Has anyone else noticed this?

[Harry Hayfield]

GOP Super Tuesday Results: Votes vs Delegates

Votes Cast:
McCain 3½ million votes
Romney 2.8 million votes
Huckabee 1.7 million votes

Delegates (from CNN):
McCain 504 delegates
Romney 175 delegates
Huckabee 141 delegates

I realise that McCain won loads of winner takes all states, but isn't it interesting that McCain's delegate lead doesn't reflect the vote lead?

[minionofmidas]

The Reps' rules are the only reason this is almost over.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

The Reps' rules are the only reason this is almost over.

Which is brings up the point, is the looming disaster ahead for my party the same sort of embarrassment that led the Democrats to reform their system?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The Reps' rules are the only reason this is almost over.

Oh, come on.  That's ridiculous.

McCain won California convincingly, and took home virtually every single delegate.  Most of the winner-take-all states like New Jersey and New York might as well have split their delegates by CD—after all, McCain won all but three towns in New Jersey (none of which have populations over 1000).

[muon2]

The Reps' rules are the only reason this is almost over.

Oh, come on.  That's ridiculous.

McCain won California convincingly, and took home virtually every single delegate.  Most of the winner-take-all states like New Jersey and New York might as well have split their delegates by CD—after all, McCain won all but three towns in New Jersey (none of which have populations over 1000).

And I'm not sure I see the problem in the first place. In the vast majority of primary races in the US it's winner take all. With a one vote margin the winner moves to the general election. If there was a national presidential primary then a narrow win would count the same as a wide margin and the winner would get 100% of the party's nomination in Nov.

However, the presidency is still based in the states for both the nominations and general elections. The use of winner take all primaries by state or CD effectively mirrors the election that will follow in Nov. Since one goal for a party is to nominate a candidate that will compete and win, having a nominating process similar to the general election is not a bad party strategy.

[minionofmidas]

McCain 3½ million votes
Romney 2.8 million votes

The Reps' rules are the only reason this is almost over.

Oh, come on.  That's ridiculous.

I think the above says all. This wasn't quite the perfect draw of the Dem race, but it would still be close enough to a draw to make a brokered convention likely under Dem rules (ignoring superdelegates for a moment). If they were using full IRV to boot, Romney might have topped the poll (but probably wouldn't have - he'd certainly have considerably closed the gap though).
John McCain is not exactly the Republican Unity Candidate, you know.

And I'm not sure I see the problem in the first place. In the vast majority of primary races in the US it's winner take all.

This isn't winner take all. Under winner take all, all states would have voted at the same time using the same rules and Giuliani, Thompson etc would still be in the race, with only the national total mattering.
What the Republican Party is using is a further debased version of the abomination that is the Electoral College. Not that the Dem rules are particularly democratic or reasonable either, of course, but they at least do a much better job of reflecting the party's makeup and internal dynamics.

The Reps' rules are the only reason this is almost over.

Which is brings up the point, is the looming disaster ahead for my party the same sort of embarrassment that led the Democrats to reform their system?

You think Reps are going to stay home rather than vote for McCain? I don't really see it. If Romney had won that kind of "clear" victory, I'd agree with you.
McCain will do at least as well as Dole did (he's getting nominated by the same "his turn"+"safe and sane" mechanism as Dole was, actually) and may very well win. Romney could not have won in 2008 no matter what.

[muon2]

And I'm not sure I see the problem in the first place. In the vast majority of primary races in the US it's winner take all. With a one vote margin the winner moves to the general election. If there was a national presidential primary then a narrow win would count the same as a wide margin and the winner would get 100% of the party's nomination in Nov.

However, the presidency is still based in the states for both the nominations and general elections. The use of winner take all primaries by state or CD effectively mirrors the election that will follow in Nov. Since one goal for a party is to nominate a candidate that will compete and win, having a nominating process similar to the general election is not a bad party strategy.

And I'm not sure I see the problem in the first place. In the vast majority of primary races in the US it's winner take all.

This isn't winner take all. Under winner take all, all states would have voted at the same time using the same rules and Giuliani, Thompson etc would still be in the race, with only the national total mattering.
What the Republican Party is using is a further debased version of the abomination that is the Electoral College. Not that the Dem rules are particularly democratic or reasonable either, of course, but they at least do a much better job of reflecting the party's makeup and internal dynamics.

You make the points that I made in my full quote. The GOP system isn't pure WTA, but it's more like it than the Dem system. Also, I think a key point is that it is in a party's interest to select a candidate that can win, and one aspect of that for the US presidency is to win in the EC. I think the GOP system tests that better than the Dem system.

On a side note, I thought that German parties selected their nominees for Chancellor from an internal body more like a caucus or convention than from a direct primary. I would think that that aspect of US party selection of a Presidential nominee from state delegates would be more like your experience.

[minionofmidas]

And I'm not sure I see the problem in the first place. In the vast majority of primary races in the US it's winner take all. With a one vote margin the winner moves to the general election. If there was a national presidential primary then a narrow win would count the same as a wide margin and the winner would get 100% of the party's nomination in Nov.

However, the presidency is still based in the states for both the nominations and general elections. The use of winner take all primaries by state or CD effectively mirrors the election that will follow in Nov. Since one goal for a party is to nominate a candidate that will compete and win, having a nominating process similar to the general election is not a bad party strategy.

And I'm not sure I see the problem in the first place. In the vast majority of primary races in the US it's winner take all.

This isn't winner take all. Under winner take all, all states would have voted at the same time using the same rules and Giuliani, Thompson etc would still be in the race, with only the national total mattering.
What the Republican Party is using is a further debased version of the abomination that is the Electoral College. Not that the Dem rules are particularly democratic or reasonable either, of course, but they at least do a much better job of reflecting the party's makeup and internal dynamics.

You make the points that I made in my full quote. The GOP system isn't pure WTA, but it's more like it than the Dem system. Also, I think a key point is that it is in a party's interest to select a candidate that can win, and one aspect of that for the US presidency is to win in the EC. I think the GOP system tests that better than the Dem system.

In a way...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, they select em in dirty backroom deals that are then presented to a convention for approval...

[Andy25]

Actually, they select em in dirty backroom deals that are then presented to a convention for approval...

Yes, that's true. And in general elections we never vote for candidates directly but rather parties at large (CD and popular vote combined).

Well no system is really perfect.

[Stranger in a strange land]

The Reps' rules are the only reason this is almost over.

Which is brings up the point, is the looming disaster ahead for my party the same sort of embarrassment that led the Democrats to reform their system?

no, the Republicans believe in states' rights, so it would be totally anathema for them to force all state parties to adopt a uniform method of apportioning delegates.

[Angel of Death]

The idea that a party tends to get the best candidate for the Electoral College by making the primary system emulate it, is, frankly, complete nonsense.