• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Forty eight winner take all states in our presidential elections. Should we change it? (1 Viewer)

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
50,768
Reaction score
40,398
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
In my opinion, winner takes all electors is archaic and not representative of a good percentage of the voters. Take texas and california. We all but know how each state will go but what happens to the thirty or thirty five percent or more who vote red in california and blue in texas? Their votes are basically given to the person they did not vote for, is this fair? Should states split their electors so the party that has less votes still gets some of the electors instead of winner takes all electors?
 
In my opinion, winner takes all electors is archaic and not representative of a good percentage of the voters. Take texas and california. We all but know how each state will go but what happens to the thirty or thirty five percent or more who vote red in california and blue in texas? Their votes are basically given to the person they did not vote for, is this fair? Should states split their electors so the party that has less votes still gets some of the electors instead of winner takes all electors?
If the states want to change it, sure.
 
In my opinion, winner takes all electors is archaic and not representative of a good percentage of the voters. Take texas and california. We all but know how each state will go but what happens to the thirty or thirty five percent or more who vote red in california and blue in texas? Their votes are basically given to the person they did not vote for, is this fair? Should states split their electors so the party that has less votes still gets some of the electors instead of winner takes all electors?
Why not just appoint the EV to each district based on the majority? Is it really that hard to determine a district's vote?
 
In my opinion, winner takes all electors is archaic and not representative of a good percentage of the voters. Take texas and california. We all but know how each state will go but what happens to the thirty or thirty five percent or more who vote red in california and blue in texas? Their votes are basically given to the person they did not vote for, is this fair? Should states split their electors so the party that has less votes still gets some of the electors instead of winner takes all electors?
If we must, as some insist, keep the electoral college then proportional awarding of the electors is the way to go.
 
If the presidential election were to be decided by popular vote, it should require winning with 2/3 of the votes cast, not a plurality or a simple majority.

Personally, I would prefer continuing to apply the EV method, using winner take all. Though I would have no problem with eliminating the Electoral College.
"In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority." - James Madison, Dec 2, 1829
 
In my opinion, winner takes all electors is archaic and not representative of a good percentage of the voters. Take texas and california. We all but know how each state will go but what happens to the thirty or thirty five percent or more who vote red in california and blue in texas? Their votes are basically given to the person they did not vote for, is this fair? Should states split their electors so the party that has less votes still gets some of the electors instead of winner takes all electors?
This is a reasonable position. It is a state-level matter, of course, but that was already raised.

Think about the logistics of a change. One of the things you run into is that it is ingrained at every level, even including churches and clubs. One job = one winner.

While it would be interesting to have Representatives elected proportionally, how exactly would you do it? British House of Commons style? Free-for-all?
 
Yes, it should change.

I'm not sure that it would change election results. I did the math on 2016, (based on my simple rounding, which I tilted towards the overall winner getting the spare electoral vote); it wouldn't have changed the outcomes for that one.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom