Today we asked, "Should non-state U.S. territories carry so much weight in presidential primaries?" There's still time to vote on Facebook, but here are the results so far:
No: 43%Yes: 38%Should Washington, D.C. carry so much weight in U.S. presidential primaries? 19%
The vote was closely divided between those for and against, with a slight preference against giving weight to the territories. Some thought that it was fine to keep this as a decision that each party made on its own:
fixedshadow: Primaries are the realm of the individual parties. I imagine that they can decide not to hold primaries in territories if they wish. Apparently the status quo is fine with them.
Others thought the question was irrelevant, arguing that candidates would emphasize less influential primaries if it suited their needs:
Solo4114:The "state vs. territory" distinction is irrelevant. Any of the candidates will crow about a victory -- especially a winner-take-all victory -- regardless of where it happens. Romney's argument is identical regardless of where he wins. It boils down to "The math is in my favor, and the longer this goes on for, the more it hurts our chances of winning in the fall." Whether the GOP electorate buys this argument is a separate issue, but fundamentally, that's Romney's position whether he wins in IL, Puerto Rico, NY, KY, the U.S. Virgin Islands, etc. A win's a win, and any win lets him advance the argument for inevitability -- especially when he gets all the delegates in that particular contest.