Well, at least that is what Wesley Little is trying figure out. What's so ironic is that I
had read just finished reading Chapter Nine of The Founding, which deals with our
founders struggle over equal representation vs. proportional representation when
setting up a Congress, when the link to the Rasmussen article was posted a Hot Air.
Fortunately, our founders were able to compromise. It's funny we are still having the
argument till this day. Let's hope our modern Democratic Party finds some kind of
compromise because clearly something is messed up in their primary system.
Here's a quote from the Wesley Little article:
The Clinton campaign could contend that it is the proportional allocationI would say something does seem wrong that Sen. Clinton is as behind as she after
system's inherent "over-fairness" that is denying her the significant
delegate gains that she justifiably deserves from winning states like
Ohio, where Clinton's 10 percent margin of victory only garnered her
9 more delegates than Obama. This may be an effective argument for
Sen. Clinton to justify going forward in the race, especially if she is able
to pull closer to even in the popular vote after the contests in Pennsylvania,
Indiana and North Carolina.
winning several big and crucial states. However, Sen. Obama leads in the popular
vote, which greatly helps his argument.
Here's the Table from the Rasmussen article:
1 comment:
This is actually a good thing for the country. . .or at least the Republican party. . .as the Dem Donkey party is forced to spend a great deal of money they should not have to spend attacking one another--leaving the eventual winner a whole lot less dinero for when time for voting approaches.
Bad grammar I know, but I haven't had coffee yet.
Post a Comment