Page 1 of 1
Winner take all?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 6:57 pm
by MrSelf
fragged one wrote: because then the candidates would completely ignore the smaller states.
Texas? Califonia?
Maine doesn't seem to have a problem, nor nebraska, I guess it's better to ignore the bigger states 
and you should have noticed I said 'more states'
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1140, old post ID:14343
Winner take all?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 9:41 pm
by fragged one
that's kind of a fractured reply...however, you're correct...it does work both ways. kerry knows he won't get texas, as it is mostly republican stronghold, whereas bush knows he won't get california, as it's mostly democratic stronghold.
however, states like wisconsin, minnesota, iowa, etc...would be almost entirely ignored while the candidates spend their time in california, texas, florida, and new york to get votes (where close to 1/3 of the population resides).
i don't necessarily agree with the electoral college as is, but that is why it's there.
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1140, old post ID:14363
Winner take all?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:44 pm
by MrSelf
Criticizing the structure of the post...
No, the winner take all was devised for small states, when the electorial system works correctly, state lines are not an issue.
But let me get you straight, it's better for the candidate to skip Texas, California, most of the midwest and north east rather than "wisconsin, minnesota, iowa"? I'm sorry, but if you make the states vote their district and the reps. vote the popular vote, then the small state are almost winner takes all anyway and the other states are more fair. Sure, unless you write some sort of election rules, some states are going to be passed over no matter what.
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1140, old post ID:14367
Winner take all?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:50 pm
by MrSelf
After some searching, Montana, Wyoming, SD, ND, Vermont, and Deleware would all only have 1 congressional district elecor vote and 2 state rep votes, making it a winner takes all no matter what. MI and WI both have 10 votes, more than most states, they would still get focus under a Nebraska style system.
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1140, old post ID:14368
Winner take all?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 11:48 pm
by fragged one
not the structure of the post, but rather the structure of the idea.
i thought you were referring to the electoral college in general, as most people do, when you referred to 'winner take all'.
now it's a bit more clear...thusfar, i don't believe that maine and nebraska have split the electoral vote...however, colorado is going to have a referrendum on the ballot this year do get rid of the winner take all system, and actually do so retroactively, and in colorado, a split is more likely.
What's brewing in the Rockies? Colorado, apparently with considerably more than the required 67,000 or so signatures, likely will have a referendum proposal on the November 2, 2004 ballot, to apportion electoral votes a la Maine and Nebraska -- and to do it retroactively! Any such Colorado change in law almost surely would divide the Colorado electoral vote because, unlike Maine (two Democrats) and Nebraska (three Republicans), Colorado's Representatives in Congress are not of one party (two Democrats, five Republicans), so the congressional-district majorities almost surely would differ.
If the Colorado initiative were to pass and to be sustained judicially, the time bomb would explode! The nine Colorado electoral votes would be split and that split could determine the election if, like 1876 and 2000, the electoral vote were sufficiently close, confused or contested. (Incidentally, the 1876 Election makes the 2000 look like child's play. A fascinating read: Rehnquist, CENTENNIAL CRISIS [Knopf, 2004]).
i like the idea of each congressional district sending their own vote...however, it's still the electoral college, and i'm not so certain that it will be any better. it would be interesting to see what the electoral count of 2000 would have been in this system rather than the winner takes all system.
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1140, old post ID:14369
Winner take all?
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 12:03 am
by MrSelf
Nope, do some research, here's a letter from a Col. rep.
here Keeps the checks in place while representing the people the best.
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1140, old post ID:14372
Winner take all?
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 12:11 am
by fragged one
MrSelf wrote: Nope, do some research, here's a letter from a Col. rep.
here Keeps the checks in place while representing the people the best.
i'm not following...how does your post contradict my post?
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1140, old post ID:14374
Winner take all?
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 12:20 am
by MrSelf
fragged one wrote: now it's a bit more clear...thusfar, i don't believe that maine and nebraska have split the electoral vote...however, colorado is going to have a referrendum on the ballot this year do get rid of the winner take all system, and actually do so retroactively, and in colorado, a split is more likely.
each congressional district to cast its electoral vote in accordance with the district's vote. The two senate votes from the state would go to the winner of the overall state election.
This is how Maine and Nebraska work, and rep. of each district votes the way their constituents voted overall. Keeping the idea of
preventing large cities and states from dominating elections., the reason the elecoral college is even in place.
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1140, old post ID:14379
Winner take all?
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 12:23 am
by fragged one
MrSelf wrote: fragged one wrote: now it's a bit more clear...thusfar, i don't believe that maine and nebraska have split the electoral vote...however, colorado is going to have a referrendum on the ballot this year do get rid of the winner take all system, and actually do so retroactively, and in colorado, a split is more likely.
each congressional district to cast its electoral vote in accordance with the district's vote. The two senate votes from the state would go to the winner of the overall state election.
This is how Maine and Nebraska work, and rep. of each district votes the way their constituents voted overall. Keeping the idea of
preventing large cities and states from dominating elections., the reason the elecoral college is even in place.
okay...i understand that. i stated as such, with the exception that i also added that maine and nebraska have yet to split their votes, thusfar making it non-sequitor, but with the future potential of having a split.
also, what i added, is that colorado is much more likely, in fact more than likely, to split.
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1140, old post ID:14380
Winner take all?
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 12:30 am
by MrSelf
Yes, the fact they can is the important part, and it works fine. Colorado has a population that feels about half and half, so yeah, for a while they get split, when you count all the votes that should go to democrates in Texas or Republican in California, you'd see that in the end it's a big deal that would work well for everyone. When non-small states do winner-takes-all, it's pretty much just not counting the vote.
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1140, old post ID:14383
Winner take all?
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 12:34 am
by fragged one
i would love to see an electoral vote map of the 2000 election under this system.
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1140, old post ID:14386
Winner take all?
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 12:37 am
by MrSelf
Yeah, I'll see what I can find/do.
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1140, old post ID:14389