Here’s a little night night food for thought… What If Democrats Used Winner Take All?
Of course, it’s too late now to change the rules but:
If the Democrats were to allot their current state delegate totals in a winner-take-all format, Clinton would actually have a significant delegate advantage. Despite having won only 14 recognized contests to Obama’s 30, Clinton would currently have a 120 (1738 to 1618) total delegate lead and a remarkable 167 (1427 to 1260) pledged delegate lead. These numbers give Texas’ “prima-caucus” delegates to Clinton and do not include Florida, Michigan or the 693 total delegates and 566 pledged delegates still to be won in the next few months.
Like I said above it’s too late now to change the rules, but Rasmussen points out:
Obviously, the Clinton campaign cannot argue for changing the system this late in the game, especially since they agreed to the ground-rules of the process before the campaign started. Yet in a race that has become principally about winning the several hundred uncommitted super-delegates, this argument could be used to provide cover for electors currently unwilling to go against the race’s “clear leader”.
The Clinton campaign could contend that it is the proportional allocation system’s inherent “over-fairness” that is denying her the significant delegate gains that she justifiably deserves from winning states like Ohio, where Clinton’s 10 percent margin of victory only garnered her 9 more delegates than Obama. This may be an effective argument for Sen. Clinton to justify going forward in the race, especially if she is able to pull closer to even in the popular vote after the contests in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina.