• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Day After...

The media declares they've won because the votes translate into delegates come time for the convention, and those delegates select the candidate. Therefore even if you only get 30% of the vote, but everyone else gets less, you've won the most delegates from that state. You will never seen over 50% vote for one guy this early in a campaign, there are too many candidates for that, but this is exactly what these early primaries are for as well, taking a state early can demonstrate your campaign has enough energy to attract votes.

Basically, if anyone is winning the Republican nomination race, its the guy who gets the most votes in primaries and therefore the most delegates. I think that's the literally definition of winning, winning states is like winning football games, it doesn't mean you've won the Superbowl, but you've still won that game and its gotten you closer to the ultimate prize.

Yes, I do understand that in states that do not hold primary run-offs AND are winner takes all states, a plurality wins. However, a 30% win in Iowa does not a national winner make. Nor does it ONLY indicate who has the most support unless you discount the greater down-the-road question of who has the most opposition by voters as the field thins out.

This is why particularly on the Republican side where the evangelicals overwhelming domination, the winner of Iowa often is particularly unacceptable to Republicans on average. I Republican win in Iowa actually could indicate greater problems to winning elsewhere.

Personally I believe anything other than secret ballot elections with enough of a voting time frame to allow everyone eligible to vote to vote - and that there should be a runoff between the top 2 if not a majority OR portioning out the delegates on percentage of votes received. This would be more democratic and representative of the overall political party - and mean all voters did have a say. I oppose "winner takes all" - particularly if short receiving at least 50% plus 1 more vote. Otherwise the most despised and hated candidate by the majority of voters can be the "winner."
 
Last edited:
@ Randel--many thanks for your timely response to my question/much appreciated. Your grasp of the situation seems right, and have to agree that as the economy improves that bodes well for President Obama, and leaves the economy issue off the table later this Fall when more people start to pay attention.
 
Hat tip to Joko104's wise suggestion shared above, suggesting a fair run off of the top 2. This may reduce the notion that Iowa's input isn't as significant as the later primaries.
 
I'd suggest a three-legged race between the top four. That would make it a more serious and impactful affair.
 
Romney is the only candidate capable of contesting the 2012 General Election BUT he's chosen to belong to a party where 75% of its supporters appear determined to vote for anybody/everybody but him.

I suspect that Romney could have gotten more than 25% of the Iowa vote if he was running as a Democrat against Obama - a president in office!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom