- 14 Sep 2019 16:40
#15033888
In every winner-takes-all system votes are being thrown away, namely those for the loser. In you have single-member districts, there's no other option, but in the case of presidential elections the district is the entire US, and there's no convincing reason for states to throw votes away.
Because Democratic states would it turn give electoral votes to the Republican candidate, according to his voting share.
The fact that you defend a 200+ year old system makes you a conservative. That doesn't mean it's bad, but to say "it should remain that way because it has always been that way" is simply dumb.
Also, as you should know by now, I'm not American. Even if I were and would dedicate my life to change the system (I wouldn't), I almost certainly would not succeed.
BigSteve wrote:Who's throwing votes away?
In every winner-takes-all system votes are being thrown away, namely those for the loser. In you have single-member districts, there's no other option, but in the case of presidential elections the district is the entire US, and there's no convincing reason for states to throw votes away.
BigSteve wrote:Why on earth would a state like, say, Wyoming want to change the system?
Because Democratic states would it turn give electoral votes to the Republican candidate, according to his voting share.
BigSteve wrote:Conservatism has nothing to do with how our system was developed, and it's stupid of you to suggest that. If you want to see the system changed, change it. Roll up your sleeves and get ready for some hard work, though. Changing the Constitution ain't easy.
The fact that you defend a 200+ year old system makes you a conservative. That doesn't mean it's bad, but to say "it should remain that way because it has always been that way" is simply dumb.
Also, as you should know by now, I'm not American. Even if I were and would dedicate my life to change the system (I wouldn't), I almost certainly would not succeed.