• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

We need to abolish the winner take all system

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
422
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The winner take all system causes presidential candidates to only pay attention to the sway states. It was put in place to give smaller states a say but all it really does is cause presidential nominees to ignore states dominated by a specific party and people living in those states contribute nothing. As an arizonan, my vote probably won't matter because all of my states votes will go to trump. If you live in california then you know that all of the electors will vote for clinton; the republicans in califrornia don't matter. The system is unfairly balanced in favor of sway states. The only 2 states which don't use this are Maine and Nebraska; the voters' vote matters in those states.

In primaries, there were a few winner take all states (such as florida and ohio) but most of them had delegates which voted proportionally. Why can't the general election be like this?


Look, I understand that the winner take all system is meant to keep big states from having too much influence, and to their credit, I'm not a big fan of the Californian government's policies and it gives smaller states like Colorado more say. That's why electors were taken from the bigger states and given to smaller states. The winner take all system isn't necessary to protect states' rights; it was just there because the founders thought that giving the people too much say would result in mob rule.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,847
Reaction score
33,760
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Agreed. I feel I'm disenfranchised due to living in Obamastan, AKA Democratistan, better know as California. The only good thing is that the candidates don't bother to show us all of their stupid negative campaign ads paid for by special interest money. That alone helps me avoid nausea around election time.
 

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
65,932
Reaction score
32,573
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The winner take all system causes presidential candidates to only pay attention to the sway states. It was put in place to give smaller states a say but all it really does is cause presidential nominees to ignore states dominated by a specific party and people living in those states contribute nothing. As an arizonan, my vote probably won't matter because all of my states votes will go to trump. If you live in california then you know that all of the electors will vote for clinton; the republicans in califrornia don't matter. The system is unfairly balanced in favor of sway states. The only 2 states which don't use this are Maine and Nebraska; the voters' vote matters in those states.

In primaries, there were a few winner take all states (such as florida and ohio) but most of them had delegates which voted proportionally. Why can't the general election be like this?


Look, I understand that the winner take all system is meant to keep big states from having too much influence, and to their credit, I'm not a big fan of the Californian government's policies and it gives smaller states like Colorado more say. That's why electors were taken from the bigger states and given to smaller states. The winner take all system isn't necessary to protect states' rights; it was just there because the founders thought that giving the people too much say would result in mob rule.

Winner take all system doesn't really prevent big states from taking over any more than proportional representation would. Big states still hold all the big time electoral college votes. So even that argument is a fail for those wanting the status quo.
 

Phys251

Anti-vax rhetoric threatens our liberty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
43,857
Reaction score
25,877
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The winner take all system causes presidential candidates to only pay attention to the sway states. It was put in place to give smaller states a say but all it really does is cause presidential nominees to ignore states dominated by a specific party and people living in those states contribute nothing. As an arizonan, my vote probably won't matter because all of my states votes will go to trump. If you live in california then you know that all of the electors will vote for clinton; the republicans in califrornia don't matter. The system is unfairly balanced in favor of sway states. The only 2 states which don't use this are Maine and Nebraska; the voters' vote matters in those states.

In primaries, there were a few winner take all states (such as florida and ohio) but most of them had delegates which voted proportionally. Why can't the general election be like this?


Look, I understand that the winner take all system is meant to keep big states from having too much influence, and to their credit, I'm not a big fan of the Californian government's policies and it gives smaller states like Colorado more say. That's why electors were taken from the bigger states and given to smaller states. The winner take all system isn't necessary to protect states' rights; it was just there because the founders thought that giving the people too much say would result in mob rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact :thumbs:
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,635
Reaction score
21,914
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This problem isn't Constitutional, it lies in the way States have decided to choose electors:

It is a system that now seems like a fundamental part of the American democracy. Presidential candidates compete to win states, which is how they get votes in the Electoral College. The U.S. Constitution does not mandate that system, however. Instead, it is left up to the states to determine how they select their representatives in the Electoral College.
How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All - FairVote

States could change it back to proportional if we wanted it enough. Lobby for it in your State.
 
Last edited:

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
55,383
Reaction score
20,386
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

beerftw

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
18,913
Reaction score
5,519
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
The winner take all system causes presidential candidates to only pay attention to the sway states. It was put in place to give smaller states a say but all it really does is cause presidential nominees to ignore states dominated by a specific party and people living in those states contribute nothing. As an arizonan, my vote probably won't matter because all of my states votes will go to trump. If you live in california then you know that all of the electors will vote for clinton; the republicans in califrornia don't matter. The system is unfairly balanced in favor of sway states. The only 2 states which don't use this are Maine and Nebraska; the voters' vote matters in those states.

In primaries, there were a few winner take all states (such as florida and ohio) but most of them had delegates which voted proportionally. Why can't the general election be like this?


Look, I understand that the winner take all system is meant to keep big states from having too much influence, and to their credit, I'm not a big fan of the Californian government's policies and it gives smaller states like Colorado more say. That's why electors were taken from the bigger states and given to smaller states. The winner take all system isn't necessary to protect states' rights; it was just there because the founders thought that giving the people too much say would result in mob rule.

The winner take all system was actually designed to give more sway to big states. Without that system, electoral votes would be split in texas, california florida etc. The idea behind winner take al is that 50+1 wins all the votes, while the original idea was to divide the country into equal representation between urban and rural.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,847
Reaction score
33,760
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here in California, we have dense population centers (LA and SF areas) that are largely Democratic, and lots of sparsely populated areas that are largely Republican. The sparsely populated parts can't possibly outvote the dense population centers, which makes all of California a very blue state.

It seems to me it would be more fair if California were to give 60% of its vote to the Democratic candidate, then that candidate should get 60% of the electoral votes, not 100%. Same in other states. If a given state votes 60% Republican, then 60% of the electoral votes should go for the Republican. That way, no one is disenfranchised.
 

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
18,294
Reaction score
11,248
Location
Rocky Mtn. High
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The winner take all system causes presidential candidates to only pay attention to the sway states. It was put in place to give smaller states a say but all it really does is cause presidential nominees to ignore states dominated by a specific party and people living in those states contribute nothing. As an arizonan, my vote probably won't matter because all of my states votes will go to trump. If you live in california then you know that all of the electors will vote for clinton; the republicans in califrornia don't matter. The system is unfairly balanced in favor of sway states. The only 2 states which don't use this are Maine and Nebraska; the voters' vote matters in those states.

In primaries, there were a few winner take all states (such as florida and ohio) but most of them had delegates which voted proportionally. Why can't the general election be like this?


Look, I understand that the winner take all system is meant to keep big states from having too much influence, and to their credit, I'm not a big fan of the Californian government's policies and it gives smaller states like Colorado more say. That's why electors were taken from the bigger states and given to smaller states. The winner take all system isn't necessary to protect states' rights; it was just there because the founders thought that giving the people too much say would result in mob rule.

It gives centrist states (purple states) more power; as it should.
 

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
65,932
Reaction score
32,573
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The winner take all system causes presidential candidates to only pay attention to the sway states. It was put in place to give smaller states a say but all it really does is cause presidential nominees to ignore states dominated by a specific party and people living in those states contribute nothing. As an arizonan, my vote probably won't matter because all of my states votes will go to trump. If you live in california then you know that all of the electors will vote for clinton; the republicans in califrornia don't matter. The system is unfairly balanced in favor of sway states. The only 2 states which don't use this are Maine and Nebraska; the voters' vote matters in those states.

In primaries, there were a few winner take all states (such as florida and ohio) but most of them had delegates which voted proportionally. Why can't the general election be like this?


Look, I understand that the winner take all system is meant to keep big states from having too much influence, and to their credit, I'm not a big fan of the Californian government's policies and it gives smaller states like Colorado more say. That's why electors were taken from the bigger states and given to smaller states. The winner take all system isn't necessary to protect states' rights; it was just there because the founders thought that giving the people too much say would result in mob rule.

 

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
422
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here in California, we have dense population centers (LA and SF areas) that are largely Democratic, and lots of sparsely populated areas that are largely Republican. The sparsely populated parts can't possibly outvote the dense population centers, which makes all of California a very blue state.

It seems to me it would be more fair if California were to give 60% of its vote to the Democratic candidate, then that candidate should get 60% of the electoral votes, not 100%. Same in other states. If a given state votes 60% Republican, then 60% of the electoral votes should go for the Republican. That way, no one is disenfranchised.

In my opinion, it would be very wise for California to end their WTA system to get the state a few presidential visits. It's been ignored because the last time it went red was for HW bush.
 

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
422
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Here's the thing though. The strongest argument isn't that presidents will only campaign in big cities, it's that little states like vermont and wyoming will have too little say in the presidential selection. The reason the founders didn't want popular vote was because they feared mob rule.

The popular vote cannot be done because the constitution has the electoral college written in stone; not with an amendment but with an article. An amendment can be nullified with another amendment (as demonstrated by prohibition) but an article cannot. The articles describe how our government is supposed to work and if we change an article, it leaves all of the others open to change as well.


Here's another note to anyone who still supports the WTA system: According to this video, 25% of all of the campaign events were in Ohio, a swing state in the top 10 even though they hold just over 3% of the US population. We can assume that this was caused by WTA. Add north carolina and florida and you got 176 out of 253 (clear majority in just FOUR STATES).
 

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
65,932
Reaction score
32,573
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Here's the thing though. The strongest argument isn't that presidents will only campaign in big cities, it's that little states like vermont and wyoming will have too little say in the presidential selection.

No... that's how it is now where only 6 to 10 states may matter in any given presidential election. When NPV happens, every persons vote in any state will matter therefore they will have to campaign more broadly.

The reason the founders didn't want popular vote was because they feared mob rule.

It wouldn't be mob rule. You still exist in a representative democracy not a pure democracy.

The popular vote cannot be done because the constitution has the electoral college written in stone; not with an amendment but with an article. An amendment can be nullified with another amendment (as demonstrated by prohibition) but an article cannot. The articles describe how our government is supposed to work and if we change an article, it leaves all of the others open to change as well.

NPV doesn't abolish the electoral college so no need to do a constitutional amendment. With NPV the EC isn't nullified. It still exists. Basically, once a state passes NPV they bind their EC vote to whomever wins the popular vote. When enough states pass this law that equal just 51% of the EC vote, NPV goes active.

Here's another note to anyone who still supports the WTA system: According to this video, 25% of all of the campaign events were in Ohio, a swing state in the top 10 even though they hold just over 3% of the US population. We can assume that this was caused by WTA. Add north carolina and florida and you got 176 out of 253 (clear majority in just FOUR STATES).

Exactly. As I said, in the current system the bulk of focus is on a few states. NPV makes all states and all votes matter in the prez election. Not just the battleground states. Every vote by Democrats in Georgia will matter as will every vote by Republicans in California.
 

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
65,932
Reaction score
32,573
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
In my opinion, it would be very wise for California to end their WTA system to get the state a few presidential visits. It's been ignored because the last time it went red was for HW bush.

It's not completely ignored. That's where a ton of the fundraising happens.
 

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
422
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's not completely ignored. That's where a ton of the fundraising happens.

Yeah but it's all from the democratic candidates. I discovered that 14 of the 53 districts have a republican majority but because of the WTA system, they are all drowned out by the democrats. In texas, it's the other way around where 11 out of 36 districts have a democratic majority but are drowned out by republicans. The conservatives in california probably feel very alienated because most of the 2016 election is spent fundraising for hillary clinton from california's pov.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom