Electoral College: does Winner Takes All make sense?

[Derf]

This doesn't explain winner takes all. Not in the least. This has nothing to do with sharing power- you end up with one president even without the winner takes all approach- which, by the way, erases the minority view in the state.

As @Right Divider said, the states elect the president. Those states that divide their electors are schizophrenic. Their legislatures have abdicated the difficult task of selecting the president the state wants. This includes my state of Colorado, which has decided to deem itself just a territory by giving all its electors to the one who wins the popular vote across the nation. Our legislature is full of idiots here.

 

[chair]

It answers the question. Consider there is a binary decision you need to make for a bunch of people. You have a number of pros and cons you consider, but in the end, the weight you put on the different pros and cons will be distilled to a decision that becomes a winner takes all among your considerations.

Same with the states, each state is forced to be united for the sake of dividing the good states from the bad. Since people can leave a state for another without impunity beyond normal moving costs, it gives feedback to the bad states to fix themselves without bloodshed.

There are so many assumptions in this post. "good states" vs. "bad states"? People easily moved from state to state based on "good" vs. "bad"? Is this some kind of evolutionary scheme to 'improve' states, or a way of making binary decisions?

 

[chair]

... you have to form a coalition government

We don't do that

When I first moved to a country with a parliamentary system and coalition governments- I thought is was horrible. Over time, I've learned that it has a big advantage: more groups, including minority groups, get a say in the decision making.

 

[Yorzhik]

There are so many assumptions in this post. "good states" vs. "bad states"? People easily moved from state to state based on "good" vs. "bad"? Is this some kind of evolutionary scheme to 'improve' states, or a way of making binary decisions?

That was the idea. The founders thought that if people were allowed to move between states and if the states could be allowed to make mistakes or not oh, that they would move to what they felt was a good state. That is the criteria and it turns out to be rather objective.

 

[chair]

That was the idea. The founders thought that if people were allowed to move between states and if the states could be allowed to make mistakes or not oh, that they would move to what they felt was a good state. That is the criteria and it turns out to be rather objective.

Unless you have some evidence of what :the founders thought", this is simply speculation on your part. Since the "winner takes all" method is not dictated in the Constitution, it seems unlikely that this was their intention.

 

[Gary K]

Unless you have some evidence of what :the founders thought", this is simply speculation on your part. Since the "winner takes all" method is not dictated in the Constitution, it seems unlikely that this was their intention.

With your paucity of knowledge of the founding fathers of the US and our constitution to take your word for anything on the constitution is a form of insanity.

 

[chair]

With your paucity of knowledge of the founding fathers of the US and our constitution to take your word for anything on the constitution is a form of insanity.

Ah- you don't have any content to refute my ideas with, so you resort to insults. Got it!

 

[Clete]

The Electoral College needs to go away so the person who receives to most votes is elected.

You wouldn't be saying that if it's removal made your guy winning basically impossible.

And, by the way, compassion is not the basis for morality, life is the basis for morality. That which is proper to life of a rational being is the good, all that which destroys it is the evil. See Our Moral God

 

[Hilltrot]

Unless you have some evidence of what :the founders thought", this is simply speculation on your part. Since the "winner takes all" method is not dictated in the Constitution, it seems unlikely that this was their intention.

I realized no one had answered your question.

At the very beginning of the U.S., the states divided its electors. However, states started to realize that if they had all their electors vote one way, they would have greater importance in the choice of the a President. If they divided their electors, then their importance in any particular election would be diluted.

So, the states chose how they wanted to select their electors. They are most welcome to divide their electors. I suggest New York, California, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Washington go first.

 

[Hilltrot]

When I first moved to a country with a parliamentary system and coalition governments- I thought is was horrible. Over time, I've learned that it has a big advantage: more groups, including minority groups, get a say in the decision making.

Really worked in the Parliamentary systems of Germany, Italy, France, Pakistan, etc.

Parliaments don't protect "minorities" unless those minorities are a part of the "coalition" government. Parliaments are relatively effective in small countries where there are very few minority populations and a mono-culture. Basically, the "coalition" can ignore the minorities and do whatever they want. The most viscous things have happened to minorities in Parliamentary systems. Far worse than any analogue you can make with the U.S.

The U.S. is a large country with a diverse population which doesn't even have an official language. The European mono-cultures are not a comparison. In comparison to the U.S., European countries lack diversity and are very racist.

 

[chair]

Really worked in the Parliamentary systems of Germany, Italy, France, Pakistan, etc.

Parliaments don't protect "minorities" unless those minorities are a part of the "coalition" government. Parliaments are relatively effective in small countries where there are very few minority populations and a mono-culture. Basically, the "coalition" can ignore the minorities and do whatever they want. The most viscous things have happened to minorities in Parliamentary systems. Far worse than any analogue you can make with the U.S.

The U.S. is a large country with a diverse population which doesn't even have an official language. The European mono-cultures are not a comparison. In comparison to the U.S., European countries lack diversity and are very racist.

I'm not sure what the viscous things are that you are referring to in parliamentary systems. Are you blaming Nazism on the parliamentary system?
As far as viscous things in the US, minor things like slavery and destroying native populations come to mind. Did I mention those camps for Japanese in WW2? Honestly, I don't think the government system is what causes atrocities. Perhaps it is one factor in a complex set of factors.

 

[chair]

I realized no one had answered your question.

At the very beginning of the U.S., the states divided its electors. However, states started to realize that if they had all their electors vote one way, they would have greater importance in the choice of the a President. If they divided their electors, then their importance in any particular election would be diluted.

So, the states chose how they wanted to select their electors. They are most welcome to divide their electors. I suggest New York, California, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Washington go first.

Thanks. This is a reasonable explanation. The net result can be odd, but at least this makes sense.

 

[Hilltrot]

Are you blaming Nazism on the parliamentary system?

Came about through a parliamentary system.

Did I mention those camps for Japanese in WW2?

Rape of Nanking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice Japanese separation camps - not even comparable.

Rape of Nanking = another end result of a parliamentary system.

minor things like slavery

Forced on the Americas by the Parliamentary system of England. Also, removed by our government.

destroying native populations

The native populations are still around.

Also a clear demonstration of the importance of separation of powers. The Supreme Court ruled against Indian removal, but the Democrat Jackson ignored them and removed them anyway with the help of the Democrat states.

Perhaps it is one factor in a complex set of factors.

A parliamentary system has no separation of the legislative and executive. And sometimes the judiciary is also under the control of the same "coalition". Thee lack of separation of powers allows for certain parties to gain full control. The whole idea of separation of powers is to reduce the power of government and prevent a tyranny from being established. The threat of being taken over by a tyranny is one of the problems with a parliamentary system.

I'm not saying that parliaments are bad. In fact, I disagree with George W. Bush and his insistence that other countries become democracies like ours. Our declaration of independence vehemently disagrees with W. Each country should be able to choose whatever government the people of that country feel is best. And if a country wants a dictatorship, parliament, monarchy, oligarchy, kleptocracy, or whatever - that is their business. As long as they don't attack us, I think the US should mind its own business.

Parliaments are good for small countries, with a common background, engrained traditions, etc.

I don't know if you understand how different the states are. In Texas, if someone steals an apple from me at night, I can take a rifle with a 60-round magazine, shoot the thief in the back 10 times, pick up my apple and go home. This is perfectly legal. And no, it might sound like I'm joking, but in this case I'm serious. (Although, I would not kill someone over an apple, even if it was a Lucy Red. Might do it over an Apple.)

Houston taco stand owner kills tip jar thief

A mobile taco stand owner shot and killed a man he said stole a tip jar from the eatery...

www.chron.com

Now, if I even brought the empty magazine with no bullets and no weapon to some states, I would be arrested and thrown in jail for years.

 

[Bradley D]

The interesting thing I find is that Pres. Trump won his first election by the electoral college. He lost the popular vote.

 

[Hilltrot]

The interesting thing I find is that Pres. Trump won his first election by the electoral college. He lost the popular vote.

The popular vote is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Why would you even mention it?

 

[ok doser]

Did I mention those camps for Japanese in WW2?

The policy of FDR, whose presidential overreach in wartime was legendary.

 

[Right Divider]

The interesting thing I find is that Pres. Trump won his first election by the electoral college. He lost the popular vote.

That was the fifth time that the winner had fewer popular votes.

 

[chair]

The interesting thing I find is that Pres. Trump won his first election by the electoral college. He lost the popular vote.

The system was set up to allow for that. In fact- the system doesn't even dictate a popular vote at all.

 

[Right Divider]

The system was set up to allow for that. In fact- the system doesn't even dictate a popular vote at all.

That is the point that I've been making... the STATES elect the president and not the people at large. Hence, the United STATES of America and not the United STATE of America.

 

[Yorzhik]

Unless you have some evidence of what :the founders thought", this is simply speculation on your part. Since the "winner takes all" method is not dictated in the Constitution, it seems unlikely that this was their intention.

Actually, it doesn't matter what they thought in in relation to your question. The winner takes all system results in the states having to lay in the bed they made. So the question is, regardless of what the founders thought, is this right or not? Turns out, it is right. Allowing people to peaceably disagree and separate from each other is a good thing. So, yeah, let one state go communist, within the principles of the constitution, and let another state go capitalist and see which one people want to live in.

Am I alluding to a great deal more than just the winner take all aspect of the electoral college? Yes, but that particular institution does fit in the each-state-is-free-to-fail context.