If all primary states were to operate under winner-takes-all system
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 05:43:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  If all primary states were to operate under winner-takes-all system		 « previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: If all primary states were to operate under winner-takes-all system  (Read 509 times)
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 28, 2016, 06:40:51 AM »
We would have something like this:


Clinton: 1654
Sanders: 633

Needed to win: 2,383


Trump: 958
Cruz: 387
Rubio: 80
Kasich: 66

Needed to win: 1237
Logged
Flake
Flo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,688
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2016, 07:08:05 AM »
Awful results imo
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2016, 07:11:12 AM »

Trump would be a presumptive nominee very soon.
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,837
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2016, 07:13:32 AM »
Interesting analysis.

I would prefer no "winner take all" voting as it fundamentally misrepresents a significant proportion of the voters wishes.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 28, 2016, 07:27:05 AM »
Quote from: Meclazine on March 28, 2016, 07:13:32 AM
Interesting analysis.

I would prefer no "winner take all" voting as it fundamentally misrepresents a significant proportion of the voters wishes.

I think it would be only proper to abolish "winner takes all" system of awarding the electors. I have doubts about assigning electors via congressional districts, as Maine and Nebraska does, since it doesn't guarantee a candidate with most support to lead. While I would prefer the PV, I could settle in for a proportional assingment of all evs based on number of the votes casted.
Logged
emailking
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,373
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2016, 07:29:30 AM »
And I think in 2008 if it were like this Hillary would have overtaken Obama in April or something and ended up winning handily.

WTA makes things interesting for sure, but I don't think it's a good system, as it effectively disenfranchises voters, both for the winning and losing sides.
Logged
dax00
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,422


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2016, 09:29:24 AM »
I'd support it if only California were WTA. That would make all the votes seem much more significant.
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,837
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2016, 10:37:08 AM »
Guess i dont mind if the results did not change so dramatically.

First thing you need to select is the method.

Then you need to apply consistency across all 50 states.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.219 seconds with 11 queries.