Get Rid of Winner-Takes-All, or Get Rid of the Electoral College
Summary of the really long post I rambled on in, which you can see below: the winner-takes-all electoral college system is an enemy of democracy, taking away the say of large portions of the populace in swing states while allowing solid blue and solid red states to be ignored. It is possible that with a split electoral vote system, Trump still would have won, as it is hard to predict what would have happened when campaigning styles would be changed to address such a system. But it is definite that with a split electoral system, we would not have large swathes of our voting population whose voice is simply unheard. If we are to keep the electoral college, then we need to get rid of winner-takes-all.
Contrary to popular belief, the intent of the electoral college was not to give small states more say. There were two intents. One was that if ever a tyrant would be elected, and electors had good reason to suspect they would be a tyrant, electors could check the popular vote and keep the potential tyrant out of power; this intent cannot be served in any state with the winner-take-all system. The other intent was to ensure that states with large slave populations could still count part of the slave population, even though they couldn't vote, in elections, thus giving slave states more say. That's right--it wasn't about giving small states more say, it was about giving slave states more say.
In order to open up the possibility of the first intent being served, we must get rid of the winner-take-all system most states use. Furthermore, getting rid of the winner-take-all system would also allow swing states (often the small states advocates of the electoral college are referencing) to truly have a say. A system in which a state's full electoral slate can be won with only a 48% plurality does not truly give the people of that state a say. If we keep the electoral college, electors need to have the freedom to vote against a tyrant that fooled the public, and electors need to be distributed in a proportional manner rather than a winner-takes-all system. For example, in 2016 in Florida, Trump got 49.02%, Clinton got 47.82%, and the rest went to third parties. To say all of Florida's 29 electoral votes should go to Trump is to say a majority of Florida voters--50.98%--should not have their voice heard. We should instead split the electoral votes proportionally among all candidates receiving at least 5% of the vote... meaning between Clinton and Trump. Since 49.02 is 2.5% larger of a number than 47.82 (figured out by using 100(t/c)-100), Trump should get roughly 2.5% more electoral votes from Florida than Clinton. This would put Trump at 15 of Florida's electoral votes, and Clinton at 14.
Another advantage to a split electoral system is that candidates would have to also address the issues faced by solid blue and solid red states. Using the same formula for New York as I did for Florida, in 2016 Clinton would have gotten 23 of New York's 29 electoral votes and Trump would have gotten 6. But if the electoral vote were split, then the Trump campaign would have had reason to focus on Upstate New York, which can go either way in elections.
The winner-takes-all electoral college system is an enemy of democracy, taking away the say of large portions of the populace in swing states while allowing solid blue and solid red states to be ignored. It is possible that with a split electoral vote system, Trump still would have won, as it is hard to predict what would have happened when campaigning styles would be changed to address such a system. But it is definite that with a split electoral system, we would not have large swathes of our voting population whose voice is simply unheard. If we are to keep the electoral college, then we need to get rid of winner-takes-all.
origamiaround
baratheonpilled
ellievsbear
gummygunk
prguitarman
turnnoffyourmind
pixelskylines