U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), according to this news story, believes that his party should use “winner-take-all” presidential primaries in 2012. The article erroneously says that Republicans used that kind of primary this year. Actually, most Republican presidential primaries were not “winner-take-all”; in many states, each U.S. House district elected its own Republican delegates.
If the Democratic Party had used “winner-take-all” presidential primaries in 1972, George Wallace would have received all the delegates from Florida, Tennessee, North Carolina, Maryland, and Michigan.
Winner-take-all is an excellent way to silence any influence even a strong minority voice has in your party.
Adding this to their superdelegate system would make their name, the “Democratic” Party, even more of an utter joke.
Interesting that the article makes part of the case for proportional allocation of delegates before it starts quoting Mendendez. The fact is that the prolonged contest between Obama and Clinton helped the Democratic Party more than it hurt (although it did do some of each).
Even more interesting is the way the politicians’ arguments against proportional allocation echo the usual academic argument against proportional representation. For example, the (alleged) need to get a “clear-cut, decisive winner” becomes “get it over with quickly”.
In the 1972 primary Governor Wallace did win all the delegates from Tennessee, however several of them broke state law by voting for someone else, or abstaining.
Considering that Menendez is part of the DLC faction, this is not surprising. All they care about is controlling the Democratic Party.