Should we switch to a "winner take all" primary system?

The proportional delegate count is very confusing and damn near impossible for either candidate to win enough delegates to lock up the nomination. Is it time for it to go and swithc to winner take all delegates if they win the state?

Or is this just a strange year with two strong candidates and the proportional system makes every vote count more?

I'm really torn on this issue.

Texas might want to change theirs though. What a hodge podge.

Obama would be ahead by 122 delegates at this point instead of being ahead by 157. Clinton would have been well ahead after Supertuesday, but there have been 454 pledged delegates allocated since then and Obama would have taken all of them. Of course, there is no way to know what effect the delegates being allocated WTA would have had on subsequent contests.

And on paper ballots. The system is a mess...

The details on primary or caucus or both are left to the states

Hill won California by 10%. Almost two million Californians (including myself) voted for Obama. I like the idea that candidates can get delegates out of closely-fought states.

and extending the primary season. I believe it makes for a better choice.

I think it's a bad idea to have some states with proportional delegates and some with a winner-take-all system. It gives the latter way too much say in the nomination.

The point of the primaries is for the members of the Democratic Party to select the person the members want to represent them in the General Election. Proportional representation is an attempt to ensure that the candidate with the most support wins the nomination.

Winner-take-all would be like turning the primaray over to the Electoral College, where someone can win without have a majority of the popular vote.

I think the problem is that our entire nation has ADD and thinks that this should all be decided in about a 2 week period.

It hasn't been THAT long ago that it took candidates until about June to accumulate a majority of delegates, and not much longer ago before that when the candidates weren't determined until the conventions in the summer.

This 24/7 news cyle is all about creating excitement and then moving on to the next best thing. In many ways it is not serving us well. It creates a pressure and expectation of "moving on". And this pressure and expectation is exhausting to all of us individuals who make up the electorate.

I don't think it's a problem that we don't have a clear nominee yet. I think it's more of a problem that the Repubs with their winner-take-all system DO. Some of their candidates barely had a chance to become known outside of the few early-voting states.