i guess the obvious question is - "should this be proportional anyways, or should it be winner take all?".
i mean, a lot of people probably don't realize that the thing is proportional in the first place. there were people grumbling that "but, sanders won the popular vote" in iowa, clearly desiring a winner take all formula.
generally, leftists prefer proportional strategies, although we argue about how to do it. i don't like proportional representation at the parliamentary level (i prefer a ranked ballot), but i prefer a proportional process at the primary level to a first-past-the-post one, certainly. the caucuses are maybe kind of a dumb way to do ranked ballots in the 21st century. i'd rather see both the primaries and the caucuses move to ranked ballots, while maintaining the proportional delegate system.
but, i can imagine the pushback.
"it's not undemocratic to get all of the delegates if you win, because you won!"
....but you'd be more cutthroat of a person than i am, and i suspect you'd contradict yourself pretty quickly if we actually had this debate, properly. chances are that you don't actually believe that....
generally, leftists prefer proportional strategies, although we argue about how to do it. i don't like proportional representation at the parliamentary level (i prefer a ranked ballot), but i prefer a proportional process at the primary level to a first-past-the-post one, certainly. the caucuses are maybe kind of a dumb way to do ranked ballots in the 21st century. i'd rather see both the primaries and the caucuses move to ranked ballots, while maintaining the proportional delegate system.
but, i can imagine the pushback.
"it's not undemocratic to get all of the delegates if you win, because you won!"
....but you'd be more cutthroat of a person than i am, and i suspect you'd contradict yourself pretty quickly if we actually had this debate, properly. chances are that you don't actually believe that....