Santorum Won More Michigan Delegates

According to the MSM, and most people who blindly follow their reports, Mitt Romney won the Michigan primary last night by about 3 points, 41 to 38. However, like the Electoral College, the point of the contest is not to win the popular vote (Gore – 2000) but to win more delegates per state based on the apportionment of those delegates.

Michigan’s primary delegate system allows for a set number of delegates to be won by state wide popular vote and the rest to be evenly distributed by Congressional districts. When you consider the facts of the contest, and the outcome of the voting pattern of the Congressional districts, Rick Santorum won more delegates by a count of 17 to 13 for Romney.

No spin; just the facts. The MSM will not report it that way so someone has to.

         

Author: TONY CAMPBELL, Columnist

Share This Post On

14 Comments

  1. Very interesting. Electoral process has never, ever made sense to me for this very reason.

  2. Well…the federal electoral system did (at least formerly) make some sense. The idea was that the smaller states would have a larger than proportional influence in the presidential election. Thus, a small state (like Vermont or Delaware) would have 3 votes instead of just 1. This was similar to the idea of the Senate having two senators per state.

    Today…?

  3. Yes so little states could have more power, but again, why? I can understand them having more representation in the form of Senators for general legislative equality, but how does that mean we have to have this absurd voting system where the majority of Americans get ignored for swing states, and a guy can get the popular vote and lose the race.

  4. The electoral college and delegate system are no longer useful. They are vestigial remnants that occasionally cause us harm (the most egregious example being the stain of GWB in 2000). We’ve outgrown it, just as we outgrew the exclusivity of an all white, male vote, yet it still hangs around.

  5. Arguably, the results at this point are more important as indicators of the momentum of support for a candidate, more than how they affect the delegate count. Therefore, I think the popular vote is still the more important indicator of who “won” a state. That could change, though, as time goes on if the race gets tight.

  6. As for the electoral college, that’s only indirectly related here. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the political parties have control over how delegates are apportioned between states, and each state controls how they are apportioned within the state. They sometimes decide to go with the pattern established by the electoral college, but I don’t think the government prescribes that. Nor should it, I think, since primaries are a matter for the parties to decide, not the government.

    But as for the issue of the electoral college as it relates to the general election, I’m conflicted. Sure it makes sense that the person with the most votes should win, but if the system is good enough for us to choose our representative branch I don’t see why it shouldn’t also be used for the executive branch. The same reasoning applies: it is another mechanism the founders put in place to avoid the tyranny of the majority: in this case, the imposition of the will of large states on smaller states.

  7. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

    It would be nice for those that argue about the 2000 election results to look at the results. Nadar cost Gore the election. Had Gore received the majority of votes in Florida that went to Nadar, he would have been President.

    As for electoral college. 2/3rds of the states will never ratify an amendment to allow Califonia, New York, Florida, Pennsyvania and a handfull of other states to elect our Presidents since their popular votes can overpower the votes from smaller states.

    If you want to create discontent within the country, try taking away the importance of voting in Iowa, Nebraska, Idaho, Nevada and other small states and see what happens when you allow the larger liberal states to dictate who is elected president.

  8. “If you want to create discontent within the country, try taking away the importance of voting in Iowa, Nebraska, Idaho, Nevada and other small states and see what happens when you allow the larger liberal states to dictate who is elected president.”

    So what. Who cares if they are “discontent”? If they are outvoted they are outvoted. The burden on them would be to convince enough people they are right in their views. If they can’t do that then the failure is theirs.

  9. CNN (a mainstream media, I think) is reporting 15 – 15 (with only 95% counted). Here’s my link.

    http://www.cnn.com/election/20.....s/state/mi

    Where’s your link? The first one didn’t work.

  10. The facts are being reported by AP, ABC News, US News and World Report, MSM all.

    The only one reporting 17 – 13 is the Christian Forum (which got it’s misinformation here).

  11. This gives Santorum a chance to slow Romney’s momentum from the win. Santorum can say…Hey, I won the most delegates and this is what the election was about.

    As for the general election…the system sounds great in theory, but works poorly in practice. We are a “united” states. Basically we are just a collaboration of states, not one country run from the top down. But really, the federal government is so large and powerful that we are not longer just a bunch of states under a framework, but a massive country being run from the top down.

  12. Or not. Nice reporting. 16 for Romney, 14 for Santorum.

Submit a Comment