To people who keep saying the GOP nomination system is more Democratic...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What'll be your opinion if in Nevada the state GOP goes ahead and gives all delegates to McCain? They adjourned the convention early to prevent a takeover by Paul supporters before delegates are chosen. So now they're just going to choose delegates after the fact, and I wouldn't be shocked if they just appoint a bunch of party hacks, all for McCain, despite the fact that Paul beat McCain in Nevada.

Not that this is the only blatantly undemocratic joke of a contest on the GOP side, but it's one of the most blatant. While people whine about Dem caucuses, at least Dem caucuses have clear rules as to how the delegates are alloted. The GOP rules don't have any formal method for allocating delegates, allowing for things such as the above and also making it possible for the results to just be completely thrown out the window.

[Keystone Phil]

It's obviously not right but I still believe that, overall, our system is more democratic.

Or maybe I can use the ever-so-fair BRTDesque answer and say, "F--K THEM! THEY'RE NOT FOR MY GUY SO THEY AREN'T REAL REPUBLICANS! GOOD JOB!"

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's obviously not right but I still believe that, overall, our system is more democratic.

Or maybe I can use the ever-so-fair BRTDesque answer and say, "F--K THEM! THEY'RE NOT FOR MY GUY SO THEY AREN'T REAL REPUBLICANS! GOOD JOB!"

So how is it overall when you also have things like Wyoming and Montana and Nebraska just now where they can completely ignore the results and just appoint whoever they want? Or how over 67% of voters essentially had their votes thrown away in Missouri.

[Keystone Phil]

It's obviously not right but I still believe that, overall, our system is more democratic.

Or maybe I can use the ever-so-fair BRTDesque answer and say, "F--K THEM! THEY'RE NOT FOR MY GUY SO THEY AREN'T REAL REPUBLICANS! GOOD JOB!"

So how is it overall when you also have things like Wyoming and Montana and Nebraska just now where they can completely ignore the results and just appoint whoever they want? Or how over 67% of voters essentially had their votes thrown away in Missouri.

Overall because Wyoming, Montana, Missouri, Nebraska and Nevada don't make up a majority of our contests, BRTD.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's obviously not right but I still believe that, overall, our system is more democratic.

Or maybe I can use the ever-so-fair BRTDesque answer and say, "F--K THEM! THEY'RE NOT FOR MY GUY SO THEY AREN'T REAL REPUBLICANS! GOOD JOB!"

So how is it overall when you also have things like Wyoming and Montana and Nebraska just now where they can completely ignore the results and just appoint whoever they want? Or how over 67% of voters essentially had their votes thrown away in Missouri.

Overall because Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska and Nevada don't make up a majority of our contests, BRTD.

OK, but then how is the GOP system in other states more democratic? Take the largest state for instance, where McCain won over 90% of delegates with 42% of the vote.

[Keystone Phil]

It's obviously not right but I still believe that, overall, our system is more democratic.

Or maybe I can use the ever-so-fair BRTDesque answer and say, "F--K THEM! THEY'RE NOT FOR MY GUY SO THEY AREN'T REAL REPUBLICANS! GOOD JOB!"

So how is it overall when you also have things like Wyoming and Montana and Nebraska just now where they can completely ignore the results and just appoint whoever they want? Or how over 67% of voters essentially had their votes thrown away in Missouri.

Overall because Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska and Nevada don't make up a majority of our contests, BRTD.

OK, but then how is the GOP system in other states more democratic? Take the largest state for instance, where McCain won over 90% of delegates with 42% of the vote.

Wow, I'm really not having this argument again.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Hey it's a fact, the Democratic system is far more proportional (though still rather flawed in some areas, see Alabama, but still miles ahead of the GOP system.)

[Joe Republic]

The Republican nomination system is not Democratic at all, which is entirely the point.

In fact, the nomination process for both parties is one of the few incidences where the names of the parties are somewhat appropriate.

[Verily]

The Republican nomination system is not Democratic at all, which is entirely the point.

In fact, the nomination process for both parties is one of the few incidences where the names of the parties are somewhat appropriate.

Sort of. Superdelegates would fit "Republican" much better than "Democratic".

[Keystone Phil]

Hey it's a fact, the Democratic system is far more proportional (though still rather flawed in some areas, see Alabama, but still miles ahead of the GOP system.)

Good for you guys. I don't want that. I also love when prominent Democratic strategists (Paul Begala) speak out against your system on national TV.

[Joe Republic]

The Republican nomination system is not Democratic at all, which is entirely the point.

In fact, the nomination process for both parties is one of the few incidences where the names of the parties are somewhat appropriate.

Sort of. Superdelegates would fit "Republican" much better than "Democratic".

Yes, that's true.

[jesmo]

I would perfer if any state that didn't vote for Hillary Clinton was excluded from the Primary contests.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Hey it's a fact, the Democratic system is far more proportional (though still rather flawed in some areas, see Alabama, but still miles ahead of the GOP system.)

Good for you guys. I don't want that. I also love when prominent Democratic strategists (Paul Begala) speak out against your system on national TV.

I don't care about him. I'm just glad my party doesn't use something as insanely braindead and moronic as winner take all. WTA is a complete f**king undemocratic JOKE.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm just glad my party doesn't use something as insanely braindead and moronic as winner take all. WTA is a complete f**king undemocratic JOKE.

Well, you guys do have caucuses which many argue are undemocratic.

[Franzl]

I would perfer if any state that didn't vote for Hillary Clinton was excluded from the Primary contests.

Ah, what a democrat you really are.

[Franzl]

Maybe I can help in this argument.

Both systems are highly undemocratic jokes.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm just glad my party doesn't use something as insanely braindead and moronic as winner take all. WTA is a complete f**king undemocratic JOKE.

Well, you guys do have caucuses which many argue are undemocratic.

The Republicans don't have any caucuses?

[Franzl]

I'm just glad my party doesn't use something as insanely braindead and moronic as winner take all. WTA is a complete f**king undemocratic JOKE.

Well, you guys do have caucuses which many argue are undemocratic.

The Republicans don't have any caucuses?

As far as I know, the republicans don't have anything quite like the Iowa system, though.

Just to be fair.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm just glad my party doesn't use something as insanely braindead and moronic as winner take all. WTA is a complete f**king undemocratic JOKE.

Well, you guys do have caucuses which many argue are undemocratic.

The Republicans don't have any caucuses?

...

I never said we didn't. I'm arguing that you have them (as well) so you're not as democratic as you make yourself out to be.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm just glad my party doesn't use something as insanely braindead and moronic as winner take all. WTA is a complete f**king undemocratic JOKE.

Well, you guys do have caucuses which many argue are undemocratic.

The Republicans don't have any caucuses?

As far as I know, the republicans don't have anything quite like the Iowa system, though.

Just to be fair.

Yes, but like Nevada they have no formal system for allocating the delegates from Iowa allowing for the type of stuff like mentioned in the original post. Also most Democratic caucuses don't use the Iowa system.

Hell let's take my home state. For the DFL caucus, you don't need to actually attend, you can just show up, vote and leave. The delegate allocation is then directly tied to the results of the vote, just like a primary. For the GOP side the vote is just a non-binding straw poll, you need to actually attend the caucus and no delegates are assigned until the district and state conventions which also have no real formal system for doing so and are prone to manipulation (though Paul was able to win a delegate from 7/8 of our districts despite the GOP no doubt trying to block this.) But Paul has to fight for his delegates, under the Democratic system he'd be guaranteed delegates statewide as well from districts 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Why do the Democrats have states that one candidate won and the other got more delegates? How is that democratic?

[minionofmidas]

Why do the Democrats have states that one candidate won and the other got more delegates? How is that democratic?

See also, 2000 presidential election.
Not democratic.

Now, compare the 2000 presidential election to rolling a dice.
More democratic.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Why do the Democrats have states that one candidate won and the other got more delegates? How is that democratic?

See also, 2000 presidential election.
Not democratic.

Now, compare the 2000 presidential election to rolling a dice.
More democratic.

The US is not a democracy. How many times must we go over this?

But the purpose of this thread is to argue how democratic each side is.

[Torie]

It's obviously not right but I still believe that, overall, our system is more democratic.

Or maybe I can use the ever-so-fair BRTDesque answer and say, "F--K THEM! THEY'RE NOT FOR MY GUY SO THEY AREN'T REAL REPUBLICANS! GOOD JOB!"

So how is it overall when you also have things like Wyoming and Montana and Nebraska just now where they can completely ignore the results and just appoint whoever they want? Or how over 67% of voters essentially had their votes thrown away in Missouri.

It is probably a majority rules thing. If you have a majority of the delegates at the state convention, then you get your way. But the GOP is making a mistake manhandling the Paul nutters this way. Nutters have their place on this mortal coil too.

[minionofmidas]

Why do the Democrats have states that one candidate won and the other got more delegates? How is that democratic?

See also, 2000 presidential election.
Not democratic.

Now, compare the 2000 presidential election to rolling a dice.
More democratic.

The US is not a democracy.

If that were true, it would not be our ally. Not that a *perfect* democracy exists anywhere.