Important as far as WTA-CD like CA is that they are “Winner-take-almost-all.” Close races can be almost proportional (Re: Michigan), but races that are not that close go massively for the winner, with each percentage point massively increasing the delegate haul. For instance, in 2008, McCain won CA by only 7 percentage points (42-35 over Mittens), but he won 158 to Romney’s 12. So, whoever wins the state overall has a huge advantage in the delegate allocation. In a moderate-liberal state like CA, this is especially true for the moderate candidate because they will win 3 delegates in a lot of districts like Nancy Pelosi’s where there are only maybe 10,000 GOP voters (IL actually factors this in by giving bonus delegates at a CD level, which I like). Santorum will be favored in districts with a lot more GOP voters, so he has a higher hurdle to get more delegates in the CD-allocation. If Santorum loses California, he probably won’t get much more than 12-15 delegates. On the other hand, Romney might get 30 delegates if he loses from Nancy Pelosi-type districts.
The system in the GOP is basically rigged in favor of the moderate overall, even with bonus delegates. This is because a lot of Southern states are proportional. This needs to be blocked in the future. There should have been a winner-take-all “Southern Primary” (except SC) on April 3rd. Conservatives should unite at the upcoming convention and seriously amend the delegate rules. That is as important as who is ultimately nominated, IMHO.
This is true. I noticed how few Southern states are winner-take-all compared to many elsewhere. But, as far as I know, this is up to every individual state. The only thing the RNC tried to do this year was make LESS states winner-take-all until a certain date. Florida and Arizona (maybe South Carolina?) violated the rules and got penalized half their delegates. But, many of the Southern states voting now or later could make their elections winner-take-all if they want. I was wondering if the "nice" states were trying to be more fair while the "mean" states were being greedier, to the disadvantage of the "nicer" candidates. The states with an eye towards cramming the candidate most in the party don't want down our throat would have more motivation to go winner-take-all. And those would tend to be liberal states where liberals win.