Hmm.
What Clinton aides discovered is that in certain targeted districts, such as Democratic state Sen. Juan Hinojosa\’s heavily Hispanic Senate district in the Rio Grande Valley, Clinton could win an overwhelming majority of votes but gain only a small edge in delegates. At the same time, a win in the more urban districts in Dallas and Houston — where Sen. Barack Obama expects to receive significant support — could yield three or four times as many delegates.
The thought that winning the popular vote might not get you a majority of the delegates. Haven\’t we been here before? Maybe they should get an expert in to change the party rules or something.
What\’s Al Gore been doing the last 8 years?
Pingback: Politics » On American Politics
AIR Texas is fairly well known for having already had ‘experts’ busy massaging the districts. This may relate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Texas_redistricting)
The greatest thing about the very great men who wrote the US Constitution is that they were very anxious to insure against the tyranny of the majority. I wold have thought that a libertarian would give this a nod of approval. (It’s a separate issue from the gerrymandering of districts, which John Lettice raises, incidentally.)
The funny thing is that there are some states that are labelled as Obama “wins” on CNN that have actually returned more delegates for Clinton, and vice-versa.