Proportional delegating encourages candidates to worry about the smaller states more than a winner takes all system. Hillary would have won by now under the Republican system (CA, TX, NY). Along with McGovern’s other innovations, like minority/gender quotas for convention delegates, the Democratic selection process has guaranteed a slate of liberals too far to the left to get elected (Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry; Clinton is an anomaly).

If the Republican Party had adopted a proportional system we probably would have nominated Romney because a proportional system often ends up more sensitive to the base. The polls all showed Romney doing worse in national polls than McCain, against either Clinton or Obama. So the proportional system would give us candidates more favorable to the base, but farther to the right than the status quo.

So in principle I agree. Proportional delegation is “fairer.” But politics is equal parts pragmatism and idealism. Win more or more ideological purity?

John McCain for President 2008 should have about as much of a prayer as Herbert Hoover in 1932. Yet McCain has something Hoover couldn’t have had in his wildest dreams: a fractured and bruised Democratic Party that has been hamstrung by its own system (Thanks George McGovern. Proportional delegating has really worked out swell!).

I’m not sure it’s all that bad for the Democratic party. The continuing primary brings a lot of free news coverage to the Democratic candidates, and it forces them to keep their faces out in front of the public. Both have used this time to run against McCain, but he isn’t able respond with as much precision.

Besides, I think having proportional delegates is better in principle. The Democrats have a close race between the two most popular candidates, one that will be decided at the convention, and that’s the way it should be. I know you like the result of McCain as the candidate, but he won by default–not because he was especially popular–as conservative Republicans split over the other candidates. I think that makes it more likely that Republican voters will be apathetic for the general election.

But it is amazing how often the Democrats manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory; the 2004 election was theirs to lose, as well.