Delegate System One for Brighton Quacks

In my prior life, we of the highest nobility would occasionally have soirees together in London. The discussions would range from business to politics, and we always decided things on a majority basis.

Then one day, some alchemist charlatans from Brighton claimed to have made gold in their pump rooms. We all sensed it as nonsense and swiftly voted them out (a contingent from Portsmouth was especially vocal about it, making use of their boots as much as their lips). Dissastisfied with the way they were treated, the Brighton group decided to make their claims anyway, defying the traditional rules. A few of my nation's more gullible citizens ate it up, and they were swindled out of their money.

I bring up this story because it resembles the current delegate equation. Why have a skewed proportional system when winner-take-all works much more effectively? To this day, all the TV networks have different interpretations of the delegate count. What a nonsensical scrum!

Look at how simply the Republicans were able to delineate their primary. Furthermore, the General Election is decided by a winner-take-all, which would seem to benefit the side whose candidate performs best in those situations.

According to Sean Wilentz's fool-proof calculations, my dear Hillary's big-state appeal would carry her to the nomination. She would lead even without the inclusion of Florida and Michigan, two states Mr. Obama murderously discarded.

Should the Democrats be run like genteel folk, or Brighton Quacks? If you answered the latter, you probably had too many puffs at an Obama rally.