Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
Posts: 44,066
|
 |
« on: January 28, 2009, 07:26:51 PM » |
|
A couple of things here. First of all, using a PR system only lengthens the race if you have more than two major candidates. If you have a scenario like the Dems in 2008, where Clinton and Obama are the only candidates to make a serious showing in the bulk of the states, then there's no reason why the race would be shorter with WTA as opposed to PR. WTA means that the frontrunner can build up a bigger delegate lead, but it's also that much easier for the candidate who's trailing to catch up. (All you need is a string of a few victories, which could be as narrow as 51%/49%, and *bang*, you're back in the game.)
Of course, if you have more than two major candidates, then PR would lengthen the race, as it becomes much harder to win a delegate majority. (But it's actually quite rare for there to be more than two serious candidates for either party's nomination after the first couple of weeks of the primary season starting anyway.)
Second, McCain's major advantage in the GOP primary system was not that every state used WTA, as not every state did use WTA. McCain's advantage was that there's a patchwork of different systems in different states, and the states where McCain did well (like those in the Northeast) tended to be WTA (or had similar rules which benefited the statewide winner), whereas states in the South and other regions were more likely to use some variant of PR. One of the key hidden moments in the GOP primary race was when Giuliani's cronies in NY, NJ, and CT changed the delegate allocation rules to WTA in all three states. They did that to benefit Giuliani, but it ended up helping McCain.
If the current rules stay in place going forward, then yeah, the GOP primary system will be somewhat tilted more towards candidates with more moderate constituencies than it used to be, just because of which states are using which system.
|
