What the CRACKPOT is with WINNER TAKE ALL states?

from PolMach Forums
Okay. What I wanna know, is who in the KRAP came up with the stupid "winner take all" idea for the Republican delegates? Why????? It freaking ticks me off that McCain can beat Huckabee and Romney by two hundred votes, then TAKE all their votes. I'm a republican... but what were they smoking when they decided to use electoral vote system? Any explanation? I'm so mad.
republican
3,830 views 5 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Okay. What I wanna know, is who in the KRAP came up with the stupid "winner take all" idea for the Republican delegates? Why????? It freaking ticks me off that McCain can beat Huckabee and Romney by two hundred votes, then TAKE all their votes. I'm a republican... but what were they smoking when they decided to use electoral vote system? Any explanation? I'm so mad


... the founding fathers with the Electoral College system.
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
Okay, I don't know what they were thinking. Why haven't we changed it yet? The democrats did.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
The principle that "winner takes all" is used in most modern democracy. Actually, I think that even Rome's republic sorta used it to elect it's Consuls.

If you are electing 1 leader, it doesn't make sense to divide it's autority proportionnally to the % of vote it received. You elected A leader, so he wins ALL the powers linked to it's new position.

Now, in many democracy, you are electing representatives. Each county has 1 representative, and the election is not determined by the popular vote, but with the distribution of representatives. It doesn't matter that the Liberak Candidate had 30% of the vote, and the Left-wing candidate also has 30%, it's the 40% conservative who will win this deputation, even if the other two "allied" mathematicly.

The same principle apply, but to a whole state, during presidential elections. The republican part probably doesn't want to give a too big importante to small time candidates that would earn some deputies if the votes were proportionnal.

You'll notice that most Democratic candidates already withdrawn from the race, while there are still more a few Republican in the race.
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
When you elect electives, you are no longer a democracy, but a democratic republic. I understand representitives, and believe in that system. The system in which I don't believe, though, is the 60% of the country that automatically "allies" because four more people in the state liked Huckabee. If I lived in Georgia, and I vote for Romney, its as if my vote doesn't even matter. I have no say, because more of the people where I live like Huckabee. I don't think it should work that way, I think that in this democratic society, each vote should count. Go popular vote!
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
When you elect electives, you are no longer a democracy, but a democratic republic. I understand representitives, and believe in that system. The system in which I don't believe, though, is the 60% of the country that automatically "allies" because four more people in the state liked Huckabee. If I lived in Georgia, and I vote for Romney, its as if my vote doesn't even matter. I have no say, because more of the people where I live like Huckabee. I don't think it should work that way, I think that in this democratic society, each vote should count. Go popular vote!


Yes... and no. As my father often said to me:

"Any political system is by definition filled with holes that intelligent people can use to their advantage, given ennough time. It was true in Rome, it is true today. The best thing is periodic revolution to change the political system once and then so people cannot get to know the system perfectly"

Trust me, there are a lot of problems with popular vote elections. Just look at Italy, Israel, Ukraine, Germany... etc...