Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: trappedincanuckistan; Jeff Head; SaxxonWoods; JediJones
I thought California was WTA by congressional district? Maybe I don’t understand what that means. What does that mean?

You were so right!

Those paying attention may have caught the media stating how the Republican Party has moved away from a winner-take-all process for the 2012 Primary Elections. A more accurate statement is that the party has moved away from a statewide winner-take-all process. Instead, the Republicans have moved primary races towards either a statewide proportionate winner or a winner-take-all by congressional district, a scheme which usually still awards a few delegates to the broader statewide winner. And if you weren’t confused yet, just for fun, there are a few other states with some combination of both.

This makes it even more impossible for Mitt Romney to win outright.

I was under the assumption that California, with it's 169 delegates, was a STATE-WIDE Winner-Take-All primary, IT IS NOT!

It is a Congressional District Winner-Take-All primary, effectively making it a proportional state.
56 posted on 03/14/2012 10:30:14 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]


To: SoConPubbie

That’s why it is so important for Newt and Rick to stay in. Both staying in denies Romney a larger % of delegates in big states like California than he would get if it was one on one. IMO anyway. As I said I’m not an expert, but it appears to me that the proportional states to come are more significant than the WTA states.


58 posted on 03/14/2012 10:35:21 AM PDT by trappedincanuckistan (livefreeordietryin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

To: SoConPubbie
It is a Congressional District Winner-Take-All primary, effectively making it a proportional state.

That's a bad misreading of district winner-take-all. Just see South Carolina. Newt won 92% of the delegates but only got 40% of the vote. District winner-take-all are likely to give someone the vast majority of delegates even with a small plurality of the vote. It all depends if each district votes about the same as the whole state did or not. Every district is its own mini winner-take-all state. It all depends how many districts are liberal enough to give Romney over 50% regardless of who else runs, and which would split more like 40-30-20, Mitt-Rick-Newt. Nevertheless, we lose nothing in either district if we move to just one candidate. Advantage is for one of our guys to drop out. New York is probably the only state out of them all where it might help Mitt if one of our guys drops out. Because it shuts out the opponents from delegates if the winner gets over 50%. But looking at the map, we can pull the same move on Mitt in Texas with even more delegates at stake, and we get big advantages in all the district winner-take-all and direct delegate election states with one candidate and no splitting.

85 posted on 03/14/2012 11:51:15 AM PDT by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

To: SoConPubbie
REPOST FROM ABOVE WITH SPACING FIXED

It is a Congressional District Winner-Take-All primary, effectively making it a proportional state.

That's a bad misreading of district winner-take-all. Just see South Carolina. Newt won 92% of the delegates but only got 40% of the vote. District winner-take-all are likely to give someone the vast majority of delegates even with a small plurality of the vote. It all depends if each district votes about the same as the whole state did or not.

Every district is its own mini winner-take-all state. It all depends how many districts are liberal enough to give Romney over 50% regardless of who else runs, and which would split more like 40-30-20, Mitt-Rick-Newt. Nevertheless, we lose nothing in either district if we move to just one candidate. Advantage is for one of our guys to drop out.

New York is probably the only state out of them all where it might help Mitt if one of our guys drops out. Because it shuts out the opponents from delegates if the winner gets over 50%. But looking at the map, we can pull the same move on Mitt in Texas with even more delegates at stake, and we get big advantages in all the district winner-take-all and direct delegate election states with one candidate and no splitting.

86 posted on 03/14/2012 11:52:04 AM PDT by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

To: SoConPubbie

California was WTA by congressional district?
__________________________________________________

OK so Willie Mitty should get same-sex marriage San Francisco Bay area..

and Obamas rich friends in Hollywood...

and the liberal parts of Sacramento..

Central Valley is full of his illegal alien buddies..

San Diego has the US Navy...They wont go for him...

What other parts of CA are liberal ???


115 posted on 03/14/2012 4:43:54 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana (Why should I vote for Bishop Romney when he hates me because I am a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson