So now we have a candidates supporters

[dsc]

congradulating themselves on getting more delegates with fewer votes. Does this senario sound even vaguely familiar? Hint: think about 2000 EC votes.

[ccpup]

1. hey, if it's what you got

you gotta go with it :evilgrin:

[journalist3072]

2. I was thinking the damn same thing....Nevada voters rejected Obama. Hell, even the culinary workers

didn't listen to their union....

And yet his camp is bragging about losing, but getting more delegates?

Pretty damn pathetic.

[Joe the Revelator]

3. Is the point of the primarys not to win delegates?

Thats the entire purpose of the election. Sorry you don't like the system, but it is what it is.

[dsc]

5. so when Bush won it was just the system

and we shouldn't have fought?

[Joe the Revelator]

6. We fought to find the votes in FL to win the Electorial College

The problem in 2000 was the votes not being counted, not the system we were working under. It is what it is.

[K Gardner]

4. You think HRC *isn't* going for the delegate count?

[HeraldSquare212]

7. The same can happen in other states, though

NY awards delegates by congressional district. A candidate could win a bunch of congressional districts by a matter of a few votes and lose a few congressional districts by a lot of votes, thereby ending up behind in the statewide count, and still walk away with a majority of delegates.