Now that the election is behind us, I've been wondering about the Electoral College. One of the odd things about it is that in most States, whichever candidate gets the most votes gets all the electoral college representatives. What is the logic behind this approach? It's not in the Constitution, most States did not have it in the past, and even today two States don't use that method.
Electoral College: does Winner Takes All make sense?
- Thread starter chair
- Start date
Sorry, but the election is not "behind us," not yet at least. Not until the treasonous leftists are brought to justice for their attempted coup.
I'd answer this if I knew why, but to be honest, I don't really care, since I'm a monarchist.
I agree that there was an attempted coup- but not from the side you're thinking of. It seems that the courts agree with me- including Trump appointees. In any case- that isn't the main subject of this thread. The election is over, for all practical purposes, and I am curious to why we have this "winner takes all" scheme.
Trump Gurl
Credo in Unum Deum
The Electoral College needs to go away so the person who receives to most votes is elected.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Absolutely WRONG.
We are the United STATES of America and NOT the United STATE of America.
The EC is very, very important to protect against a direct democracy (i.e., pure majority rule).
Pure majority rule leads directly to the tyranny of the majority.
Last edited:
Places with lower populations should not be treated like more populous places. But with only 17 percent of the population outside the big cities, they are doomed. Rusha doesn't care because deep inside, she doesn't care about people.
One could argue either way- which is why you have a house of representatives and a senate. But the electoral college is something else altogether, and is unrelated. Small states get less electors, just like the house of representatives. What I don't see is why "winner takes all" make sense.
I could argue the same for our current system at a slower pace, but I think you're aware of my stance on the kind of government we should have...
Right Divider
Body part
Yes.
My point was that there was a reason it was created. And that reason makes it, at least, better than just majority vote.
Better, but not by much. But I'll leave it at that.
Right Divider
Body part
Not disagreeing, just saying we'd be worse with majority rule. But I'll leave it at that.
Last edited:
In this case, the idea was to keep the states as separate entities so that good states could be left to succeed, and bad states could be left to fail.
But why "winner takes all"?! nobody has answered that.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Because we don't share power here in the United States like other British derived societies/democracies do, that are based on a more parliamentarian form of government.
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.
Right Divider
Body part
In the United STATES of America, the STATES elect the president.
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.