- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,908
- Reaction score
- 489
- 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.
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.
How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All - FairVoteIt 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.
This problem isn't Constitutional, it lies in the way States have decided to choose electors:
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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).
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?