<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: words : beware of headlines</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dithyrambs.net/archives/28/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dithyrambs.net/archives/28</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:09:03 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: r · j · s</title>
		<link>http://dithyrambs.net/archives/28#comment-13</link>
		<dc:creator>r · j · s</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:43:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dithyrambs.net/archives/28#comment-13</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the extra thoughts - sometimes it seems there are many twists and turns it's hard to think the issues through logically.  So every extra bit of input helps!  And thanks for reading :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the extra thoughts - sometimes it seems there are many twists and turns it&#8217;s hard to think the issues through logically.  So every extra bit of input helps!  And thanks for reading <img src='http://dithyrambs.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Segal</title>
		<link>http://dithyrambs.net/archives/28#comment-12</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Segal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:24:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dithyrambs.net/archives/28#comment-12</guid>
		<description>It is actually even more complicated than that. Due to the intricacies of Nevada delegate allocation, even though Clinton won the popular vote, and delegates aren’t actually chosen yet, it looks like Obama actually will win more delagates! (I don’t know the details of Nevada voting, but I assume it is analogous to how Bush won more electoral votes than Gore despite Gore winning more popular votes). See for example http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/19/592606.aspx

Also, in a primary, I would say always to vote your conscience, even if your favorite candidate is clearly not going to win, since, as you mention, the more delegates your candidate wins the bigger role s/he can play in the convention. (For a general election of course this calculus doesn’t hold, since the non-winners have no bargaining power after the election, thus if you have a preference between the front runners you are better off voting that preference rather than a third-party candidate. I bet most of the people who voted for Nader in 2000 wish they could take back their votes…).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is actually even more complicated than that. Due to the intricacies of Nevada delegate allocation, even though Clinton won the popular vote, and delegates aren’t actually chosen yet, it looks like Obama actually will win more delagates! (I don’t know the details of Nevada voting, but I assume it is analogous to how Bush won more electoral votes than Gore despite Gore winning more popular votes). See for example <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/19/592606.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/19/592606.aspx</a></p>
<p>Also, in a primary, I would say always to vote your conscience, even if your favorite candidate is clearly not going to win, since, as you mention, the more delegates your candidate wins the bigger role s/he can play in the convention. (For a general election of course this calculus doesn’t hold, since the non-winners have no bargaining power after the election, thus if you have a preference between the front runners you are better off voting that preference rather than a third-party candidate. I bet most of the people who voted for Nader in 2000 wish they could take back their votes…).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
