Posted on 02/03/2012 11:37:06 AM PST by VinL
You did not misread the headline; and its not just a truism about Mr. Gingrichs political orientation, I mean hes correctthat Floridas winner-take-all primary system isnt fair.
According to Republican National Committee guidelines, all contests held prior to April 1 must allocate delegates proportionally. But Florida, not wishing to change procedures or fall behind other states, decided to flout the RNC rule, which means that Mitt Romney will get all 50 of its delegates. Mr. Gingrichwho came in secondwill get none. Under a proportional system, Mr. Romney would receive 23 and Mr. Gingrich 16.
Not only that, NPR has calculated that Mr. Gingrich would currently be leading his rival 39 to 32 overall (New Hampshire plus South Carolina plus Florida), if delegates were allotted proportionally.
Mr. Gingrichs campaign, which has surely done the same math as NPR, has complained to the Florida G.O.P., and consequently left me in a rather unfamiliar position. For perhaps the first time in my life, I completely agree with the former House speaker and future moon colonist.
Mr. Gingrich might have raised this issue before the Florida primary, when some polls suggested he could eke out enough of a plurality to benefit from the winner-take-all system. I doubt he would care about the RNC guidelines if hed managed to win, and I doubt Floridas delegates will be instrumental in determining whether Mr. Romney or Mr. Gingrich earns the G.O.P. nomination.
But the point is that a candidate in a two-person, winner-take-all primary could get 49.9 percent of the votes, and receive no delegates, and thats not right. As our editorial board has said many times, both parties rules should be rewritten to guarantee that the number of delegates a candidate receives accurately reflects his percentage of the popular vote. (snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Mitt Romney is not the G.O.P. nominee and God willing will never be the President.
Can you tell Us when did he said that, I can easily find that what you are saying what he said, I you can not elaborate you are a big fat LIAR!
Bump.
No, the committee that set the date also set that it was a winner take all primary. The rub is that the GOP has a rule that states if the primary is held before April 1, it cannot be winner take all.
Not gonna happen, Mittbot.
I imagine this agreeing with the unfairness of winner take all is setting the stage for the upcoming DNC push to make the prez election go to the highest popular vote and to get rid of the electoral college.
We need to choose wisely in these primaries and the wise choice is Gingrich.
NPR via NYT
Newt leads Romney
39-32
lets post the ny times if it says newt was wronged....but tomorrow they will be a lib rag again?
romney no chance but newt would roll huh?....ya
what would reagan think of mitt?....the former dem ,reagan? the pro choice then pro life,reagan?.the great prez ever was fdr,reagan?..the liberal republican pa senator running mate then g h w bush, reagan? the amnesty ,reagan?...the barracks bombing in lebanon and running, reagan?...i think he would like mitt alot..what you think?...two peas in a pod it seems
Here on the left coast, I’ve given up on Limbaugh. I’m sick of his rants and half truths.
I now listen to Armstrong and Getty because they at least entertain my brain with thought provoking banter.
I’m thinking maybe there is a missing (SARC) tag?
The primaries have just begun, but more importantly, I will never vote for Romney. I will vote 3rd party, write in a candidate or stay home, but I will not vote for a candidate like Romney who is no better than Obama. Why would I waste my time or vote?
Here are the other straight-up winner-take-all states...good news for Romney:
AZ
DC
DE
NJ
UT
These are winner-take-all only if the winner gets 50% of the vote (Newt needs to get his margin of victory up on these):
OK
AL
lets post the ny times if it says newt was wronged....but tomorrow they will be a lib rag again?
*********************
Not exactly. It is a left leaning newspaper today- and I suspect, it will be no different tomorrow.
In this instance, it merely adopted the correct position on the subject issue.
Bleh.
what would reagan think of mitt?....the former dem ,reagan? the pro choice then pro life,reagan?.the great prez ever was fdr,reagan?..the liberal republican pa senator running mate then g h w bush, reagan? the amnesty ,reagan?...the barracks bombing in lebanon and running, reagan?...i think he would like mitt alot..what you think?...two peas in a pod it seems
***************
Pres. Reagan would have only to assess “Romneycare”-—to undercover where your man’s true leanings stood. What do you think?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.