Do you agree with "winner takes all" electorates?
Some states have "winner takes all" system, others give you whatever districts you win.
- LV426Lv 69 years agoFavorite Answer
One of the objectives of the EC is to avoid candidates focusing on a few, more populous areas, while ignoring all the others.
If EC votes were divided up in a state along the lines of the popular vote, then you, in essence, still have a popular vote (just with fewer "people").
Knowing that, say, Ohio's 20 votes * all * went to the winner, forces candidates to pay the state a visit.
However, If the candidate knew the state was pretty evenly split, even without them stumping in the area, they know they can count on 10 votes.
With the "winner take all" model, an almost even 50/50 split suddenly becomes a BIG concern.
- Anonymous9 years ago
In New Zealand we used to have 'winner takes all' and it was known as 'First Past the Post'.
Then we had a referendum and the public voted to bring in MMP. That is Mixed Member Proportional Representation.
The public gets to vote again at this election in November as to whether or not we want to retain MMP or return to a two party race where the winner takes all.
We have a Parliamentary system in New Zealand and it is a lot cheaper to run than your American one.