Whose primary is more democratic?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

For all the issues with it, I still vote for the Democrats. At least we don't have the sheer retardedness that is winner-take-all primaries and Montana/West Virginia/Wyoming type affairs.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Democratic. A fact that is, when you remember quite how undemocratic the "Democratic" primary has been is and will be, is quite an indictment of the Republican primary...

[M]

The Republican is certainly more republican (neither is democratic). Our "party leaders" are far less consequential than their superdelegates.

[Padfoot]

neither is very good but I think the Republicans do it better.  I don't like the whole winner take all thing but I absolutely abhor the idea of superdelegates.  Democrats need to pick either the smoke filled backrooms or a primary.  They can't have it both ways.  At minimum the number of superdelegates needs to be reduced dramatically.

[Nutmeg]

neither is very good but I think the Republicans do it better.  I don't like the whole winner take all thing but I absolutely abhor the idea of superdelegates.  Democrats need to pick either the smoke filled backrooms or a primary.

I voted Republicans for the same reason.

They at least take after the U.S. electoral college, whereas the Democrats use a politburo with some input from the people.

[perdedor]

Two words: Super Delegates.

I do like the proportional distribution of delegates. With that said, it makes me sick to think that a close election, such as this one, may be decided by the party elite in a smoke filled back room. It would be enough to drive me independent. So, yes, winner take all sucks. However, I still believe that GOP has a superior system.

[minionofmidas]

Democratic. A fact that is, when you remember quite how undemocratic the "Democratic" primary has been is and will be, is quite an indictment of the Republican primary...

My thoughts exactly.

[Gustaf]

I actually prefer the GOP system, once all is accounted for. Winner-take-all has its disadvantages. But the proportional system makes the election a battle of attrition which favours the candidate with the best establishement connections. And then there is the super delegates. While one can take issue with the system picked by a state party to choose its delegates that in itself can never, imo, be less democratic than actually overriding the people's choice of delegates by introducing super delegates from above.

[Platypus]

The Democrats have a much better system to determine who should attend the party convention. 'Superdelegates' are the kind of pople who need to be there, and there need to be voices of the people. The way the delegates of the people are selected by the Democrats is much, much bette.

That said, in the actual vote for Presidential candidate, the Republican system is more sensible, and democratic.

[Bacon King]

Both suck.

[Iosif is a COTHO]

I don't think the superdelegates would be so stupid as to sway the nomination away from whoever wins the real delegate count, but the potential is there and so I'd have to say Republican.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The whole delegate system is a sham, btw. As has been shown by events this year.