Having attempted to raise three daughters, I’m familiar with the concept of feminine and masculine traits or values.
Competitiveness…defeating your opponents…killing the most vampires in the video game…those are supposed to be masculine traits. Making others feel valued…playing fair…taking turns…those are supposed to be feminine traits.
The Democratic Party’s nomination rules fall squarely into the “feminine” category – they devised rules that were supposed to include as many viewpoints as possible. Winner-take-all primaries, on the other hand are decidedly “masculine.” The winner, regardless of how close the margin is, gets to keep everything and the loser walks away with nothing except lowered self-esteem.
One of many ironies of this extremely ironic political season, is that it appears these rules may block the nomination of the first woman presidential candidate in history and create exactly the kinds of rifts that such “inclusiveness” is supposed to avoid.
I did a rough count and it looks to me that if Democrats had used the winner-take-all system, Clinton would be leading by about 1,525 to 1,375. If you add in the Michigan and Florida delegates, she could be closing in on 1,900 delegates. A win in Pennsylvania would put her either over the top or very close, enabling the Democrats to wrap things up before summer.
It’s even possible that she might already have it wrapped up, because her campaign would have made strategic shifts in a winner-take-all system, taking resources from states that were sure losers to focus on close contests in large states – Missouri, where the two candidates essentially tied, comes to mind as one example.
Winner-take-all primaries should create hard feelings among the losers and the losing candidates’ supporters. They come within a percentage or two of winning, and they get nothing for their effort. It hardly seems fair, does it?
Yet, the winner-take-all system that is used in many Republican primaries seems to have actually helped the Republican Party. Precisely because the system created winners and losers, Republican voters were able to reach consensus and settle on a candidate with a minimal amount of divisiveness. The losers, not wanting to shut the door on future opportunities, took great pains to show they were not “sore losers.” The winners, having comfortably pocketed the kitty, could afford to be gracious and humble in their victories.
The Democrats’ proportional allocation rules will almost certainly prevent either candidate from winning enough delegates to capture the nomination. This will force party leaders to pick a nominee in a series of backroom deals that could make “Democratic Party” an unintentionally ironic title.
