'Winner Take All' States in Election

[Sam Stone]

What's the deal with States being 'winner take all'? Why would they do this? Is it a good idea? It seems to me that it's not very Democratic - you're already taking a couple hundred million votes and reducing them down into 270 electoral votes - to further granularize that by having some big states with a lot of electoral votes be 'winner take all' doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

You could have a situation in which a difference of one percentage point in say, California can give a candidate a 20% lead in electoral votes. This doesn't seem right.

The way it currently shakes out is pretty even - the big winner-take-all states seem to be fairly evenly mixed between Republican and Democrat. But what if that weren't the case? What if Texas, Florida, and California tended to always vote Democratic or Republican by a slim majority? You could have a situation in which a 2% difference in each of three states virtually seals an election.

The other thing this seems to do is freeze out the third party candidates.

Comments? Can someone give me the pro-winner-take-all viewpoint?

[Gadarene]

Hold on to your hat, Sam. Are you ready?

I agree with you 100 percent.

*faints*

[cmkeller]

I agree with you as well, Sam. I'm on record on this board as hating that stupid system and hoping that somehow, someday, common sense will get rid of it.

I'm one of those millions of Republican voters in New York who know that we might as well not exist, as far as Presidential politics goes. Well, at least I have some say in the Senate race...

[lee]

It does hurt third party candidates which is why it is very difficult to change. It also lends more importance to results of the primaries so that early primaries and big states can unduly affect the nomination in the two big parties. I believe states changed to winner takes all for the very reasons it is unfair and undemocratic.

[Sam Stone]

So you believe that states became 'winner take all' because the government in the state at that time felt that it would be to its own party's advantage?

How come I never see Referenda or propositions to get rid of winner-take-all? There must be SOME good points for it, aren't there?

Can anyone argue in favor of it?

[Ashtar]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
So you believe that states became 'winner take all' because the government in the state at that time felt that it would be to its own party's advantage?

How come I never see Referenda or propositions to get rid of winner-take-all? There must be SOME good points for it, aren't there?

Can anyone argue in favor of it?

Not enough people understand how the electoral college works.

Our founding fathers designed the Electoral College because they knew that there might be an election one day during a time when the voters were not 'competent' enough to make so important a decision as to elect the leader of their executive body. The basic gist of it all is that the the voting is then delegated to the Electors in the college who cast the votes in turn for the presidency. They do not have any legal obligation to vote for any particular candidate. The idea being that the Electors who are nominated are invariably more well-educated and informed then the rest of the country. (Taking into account that back then, a lot of people didn't even finish high school).

So--it's a safeguard. If some evil schmuck with a dirty scheme for the presidency can put on a good dog-and-pony song-and-dance routine to win the popular vote from the states, but who's intentions are obviously questionable to the Electors--they can vote for another candidate. Today, the Electors are usually nominated within the states individual campaign workers as part of a symbolic 'reward' for their efforts.

Back then--the Electoral College probably balanced out pretty well. But these days--it's kind of outdated and due for a revision, I think.

-Ashley

[Gadarene]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
So you believe that states became 'winner take all' because the government in the state at that time felt that it would be to its own party's advantage?

Actually, AFAIK, states were 'winner take all' because alternate electoral methods weren't really known to the Framers. The concept of proportional representation was only developed in the 1790s, after the 'winner take all' system had become entrenched in the United States.

Simply speaking, the states are all 'winner take all' because at the time, nobody knew any better. It hasn't been changed largely due to inertia and the rise of an institutionalized bipartisan system.

Here's a website about electoral reform in general and proportional representation in particular. This is a website which gives the history of 'winner take all' elections in the US.

'Winner take all' is certainly antithetical to democratic ideals, as is equal state representation in the Senate. Both are two solidly entrenched to be changed without a significant public outcry (and maybe not even then); neither rate even a blip on the general public consciousness.

[Gadarene]

Both are too solidly entrenched etcetera etcetera...

[kunilou]

Okay, I'll restate what I've said in previous posts.

Truman/Dewey/Wallace/Thurmond in 1948
Kennedy/Nixon in 1960
Nixon/Humphrey/Wallace in 1968
Carter/Ford in 1976
Clinton/Bush/Perot in 1992
Clinton/Dole/Perot in 1996

That's six elections out of the last 13 where the winner either had a razor-thin majority of the popular vote (1960 and 1976), or didn't even get a majority of the popular vote (all the rest). Without the bumbling, archaic, anti-democratic, winner-take-all Electoral College, at best we would have wound up with precinct-by-precinct recounts and at worst the presidency would have been decided by the House of Representatives (and how democratic is that?)

[Gadarene]

Don't know 'bout the rest of 'em, kunilou, but I don't think Sam Stone and I are arguing against the Electoral College here. We could keep the system exactly as it is--Electoral College and all--and make things a hell of a lot more fair by giving candidates a number of electoral votes in each state in proportion to the percent of votes they get.

The way it is right now, Gore could beat Bush 47 percent to 44 percent in California, and Gore gets all 54 California electoral votes. That's hardly fair--how difficult is it to divide the votes so that Gore gets 47 percent of the 54 (approximately 25 votes), Bush gets 44 percent (approximately 24 votes), and Nader or whoever gets the remaining 9 percent (5 votes)? Whoever gets to 270 first still wins; it's just a fairer way of mirroring the results of the election, state by state.

[Sam Stone]

That's exactly what I'm thinking.

But hey Gadarene, it sounds like we finally found something in this thread to disagree on - I think proportional representation in the Senate is a BAD idea. One of the primary problems in a Democracy is the "Tyranny of the Majority". This is especially problematic in large countries. Allowing each state an equal say in the Senate prevents a small state with different values (say Hawaii) from having their interests completely steamrollered by the majority.

This is the problem we have in Canada. We don't have equal representation by province, and as a result the country is frequently under the threat of separation. And in our system, you get things like the National Energy Program, which was essentially a large population in the East attempting to steal resources from the smaller populations in the west. It took the threat of separation and an Alberta Premier with giant brass balls who drew a line in the sand to keep that from happening.

Our government in Canada has been slowly moving towards the concept of a representative Senate that has actual power, but we're not there yet.

[Gadarene]

Allowing each state an equal say in the Senate prevents a small state with different values (say Hawaii) from having their interests completely steamrollered by the majority.

Conversely, though, it substantially underrepresents the urban populations of more populous states, as smaller, rural states have enough votes to veto any legislation, despite comprising a substantial minority of the population.

At the risk of further hijacking this thread, let me quote from a book review of Sizing Up the Senate: The Unequal Consequences of Equal Representation by Frances Lee and Bruce Oppenheimer. This comes from this week's issue of that noted liberal rag, The American Prospect ; despite that, though, the numbers are good, and I think the logic is sound:

America's upper house....is "the most malapportioned legislature in the world." Virtually every other bicameral legislative system has been careful to make the so-called upper chamber less powerful than the lower, but in the United States the Senate is fully equal to the House in clout, if not superior.

Yet the Senate's method of apportionment is increasingly at odds with any modern notion of democratic equality. In 1789, when the first senators took the oath of office, the ratio between the most populous state (Virginia) and the least populous one (Delaware) was 11 to one. Today, the ratio between California and Wyoming is more than 60 to one, while by the year 2025, according to the latest census projections, it will be more than 70 to one....

The result, among other things, is an ever more gregious form of minority rule. In 1790, as Lee and Oppenheimer point out, it was possible to assemble a Senate majority out of members representing 30 percent of the national population; today, it is possible to do the same with senators representing just 17 percent. Under current rules, 41 senators representing as little as 11 percent of the US total can effectively veto any bill, while 34 senators representing as little as 7.5 percent can block any constitutional amendment. To quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan...."Already we have seven states with two senators and one representative. The Senate is beginning to look like the pre-reform British House of Commons."

I hate to disturb this pleasant agreeability that you and I are enjoying, Sam, but I offer that up for what it's worth.

[Sam Stone]

Sure, that's the other side of it. No argument. But you need checks and balances. The majority already has a lot of power. In the U.S. you've chosen to put a check on that power in your Senate.

I predict that if you go away from equal representation in the Senate you'll start seeing an awful lot of internal strife from smaller states that have demographics substantially different from the 'average'. As a Canadian living in a conservative province in a liberal country, let me tell you what that's like... We get stomped on. The federal election is almost always decided before our votes are even counted, and once the Eastern Party of Choice is in power, it does whatever the people in the East want, even if 90% of Albertans vote against it. We're simply along for the ride. And that has caused Alberta to come close to separation twice in the last 50 years.

Frankly, I think the U.S. system is as close to perfect in terms of managing a Democracy as any country we've seen. You guys are 200+ years old, you still retain most of your freedoms, and you have a government that stays comparatively small because of the hamstrings you put on it. (Note that I said 'comparatively' - by any actual measure the U.S. government is a behemoth).

I think a lot of people get upset when they see all these checks and balances stopping the programs that they support. But try and remember that those same checks and balances will be there protecting you when your political enemies gain power.

[Gadarene]

Sam, I agree with the substance of your post. I just wish that our system better represented the diversity of the American population, which unfortuntely won't happen by giving equal state representation in the most powerful legislative house. The book referred to in the review apparently states that equal senatorial representation underrepresents blacks by 43 percent, and Hispanics by 72 percent--given that the bulk of these ethnic populations are concentrated in a handful of populous states. I haven't read the book, so I can't check out the numbers for myself, but they sound right--and if they are, I find them profoundly disturbing. Here's an example from the review:

Currently, California is almost evenly split between whites and non-whites, yet, according to the same [census] projections, today's "minorities" will constitute nearly a two-thirds majority in that state by the year 2025. Over the same period, Wyoming's non-white population is expected to go from 11 percent....to 15 percent. Assuming that past practice holds, however, representation will remain stuck at exactly two senators each.

I appreciate the concerns you've laid out, but I also don't want a situation in which a few small states can effectively prevent any bill--a federal urban restorative project, for example--that might be value-neutral to them yet highly beneficial to the bulk of the US population. This is why I've proposed a mixed senate in the past, with half the body representing the states (equally), and half being elected on a national at-large basis. Of course, such a reform--even assuming it would accomplish greater democratic representation--will almost surely never happen. I dunno, but it seems like the situation's getting worse rather than better, for precisely the fact that we've been around for over two hundred years, and things are a lot different now than when the Framers drew up the structure of our government.

[Sam Stone]

You'd just be replacing one form of diversity for another. Imagine if the government were completely proportional to population. You'd have a situation where California and New York could effectively dictate to the rest of the country. This is not good for 'diversity', if you are willing to include the farmers in Montana and the people living in the Bayou of Louisiana as adding diversity to your country. Under your proposal, people like that would have virtually no say in national affairs.

And I think you make the mistake of thinking that blacks are uniform in their wants and needs. Does a black person living in Compton share a lot of goals and ideals with a black farmer in Louisiana?

There are several types of diversity - ethnic diversity, geographic diversity, cultural diversity, etc. Blacks and whites in San Fransisco probably have a lot more in common with each other than they do with a white farmer in Idaho.

Your current system does a pretty good job of balancing the needs of all types of diversity. Not perfect, but pretty darn good. I can say that as an outsider looking in, from a system that has the type of government you advocate.

[KellyM]

Originally posted by Gadarene
Actually, AFAIK, states were 'winner take all' because alternate electoral methods weren't really known to the Framers.

This is, of course, completely wrong. The electoral college, as envisioned by the Founders, was never intended to be "winner take all" by state. Each state was expected to elect electors in proportion to its Congressional representation, who would then meet and confer and select a President in deliberative assembly. The evolution of the rubberstamp electoral college was never intended or anticipated by the Founders.

Remember, you don't vote for President. You vote for a slate of electors all of whom have promised to vote for the candidate for which that slate stands. You have the right to find out who those electors are, although in general nobody really cares.

As far as I know, a State could require that electors be voted for independently if it wanted. And as far as I know, the elector's promise to vote for the slate's candidate is not legally binding; an elector could, in theory, renege on that promise and vote for some other candidate. (This has happened before but not in a very long time.)

[KellyM]

Originally posted by Gadarene
I appreciate the concerns you've laid out, but I also don't want a situation in which a few small states can effectively prevent any bill--a federal urban restorative project, for example--that might be value-neutral to them yet highly beneficial to the bulk of the US population. [/b]

Isn't is a misconception of the role of the federal government? Urban restoration sounds like a local issue to be dealt with by local governments. Why should the federal government be involved in urban restoration at all (except, of course, in the national capital)?

[KellyM]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
I think a lot of people get upset when they see all these checks and balances stopping the programs that they support. But try and remember that those same checks and balances will be there protecting you when your political enemies gain power.

At least one of the early Constitutional commentators noted that all the procedural checks in the Constitutional system would tend to lead to Federal inaction. He then went on to say that this was probably a good thing.

[Gadarene]

Originally posted by KellyM
[b]

This is, of course, completely wrong. The electoral college, as envisioned by the Founders, was never intended to be "winner take all" by state. Each state was expected to elect electors in proportion to its Congressional representation, who would then meet and confer and select a President in deliberative assembly. The evolution of the rubberstamp electoral college was never intended or anticipated by the Founders.

Kelly: You're right, and I conflated two different things. Voting systems other than 'winner take all,' however, weren't really known to the Framers. See the links I gave above for a history of 'winner take all' in the US.

Also, it's arguable whether the federal government can and should finance national restorative projects. If you think it hasn't been done at all, you should have some words with LBJ and FDR. Anyway, if that's not a good example for you, try a bill creating an agency which uses tax dollars to finance microcredit ventures in the inner city, in order to restore our urban infrastructure.

Sam:

Blacks and whites in San Francisco probably have a lot more in common with each other than they do with a white farmer in Idaho.

In a way, this was my point; I didn't mean to make it an exclusively racial thing. The interests of that white farmer in Idaho are much better represented in the Senate, proportionally, than the interests of urbanites in the Bay Area.

Imagine if the government were completely proportional to population. You'd have a situation where California and New York could effectively dictate to the rest of the country.

Well, to whatever extent that would be true, here we have a case where Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, Alaska, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and other smaller states can effectively dictate to the rest of the country just as much...if not more, given that it's a much smaller number of people doing the dictating. One's tyranny of the majority; the other's tyranny of the minority--I don't either should exist in the country's most powerful legislative house. What do you think about my mixed Senate idea, in theory?

[pldennison]

Originally posted by Gadarene
[BThis is why I've proposed a mixed senate in the past, with half the body representing the states (equally), and half being elected on a national at-large basis. [/b]

You may have posted it on other thread, and if so I may have missed it, but how exactly would the elections for these positions work? For the first set your propose, each state would, I assume, vote for its senator from candidates within the state. But are you saying that each state would also elect 50 other at-large senators?

[ExTank]

Sam, I'm with you. I see exactly what you're talking about.

Gadarene: Maybe an amenment is in order? Say, if 3/4 of the House approve a Bill after it's returned by the Senate, it goes forward to the Pres. regardless?

This would help insure that it was truly Something Important, as getting 3/4 of the House to agree on the time of day is hard enough; but it wouldn't be universally obviating the Senate, either.

It also has the elegance of not having to pay the additional salaries of the "proportional" Senate, something that appeals to my conservative nature.

Of course, getting the Senate's approval on such an amendment (not to mention the several states you've mentioned) might be a bit problematic.

Thoughts?

ExTank
"Mostly Harmless :wally"

[Timon of Athens]

I believe that two states, Nebraska being one of them, no longer have "winner take all." In Nebraska with 5 electorial votes, two go to the overall winner and the other three go to the winner of each congressional district. Somebody confirm for me that your electoral votes match your number of representatives is congress in which case the two represent to Senators.

At this time they have never had to split their votes, although Clinton nearly got one last time around.

[John Corrado]

Just to throw out some information, not all states have a "winner take all" system. Maine currently gives one electoral vote for each congressional district won, and then two more votes to the over-all winner of the state.

Is that better than winner-take-all? Or does dependence upon Congressional districts give even more emphasis to gerrymandering?

[Gadarene]

Originally posted by pldennison
You may have posted it on other thread, and if so I may have missed it, but how exactly would the elections for these positions work? For the first set your propose, each state would, I assume, vote for its senator from candidates within the state. But are you saying that each state would also elect 50 other at-large senators?

(For reference, I think I mentioned this on the Improved US Government thread and the Pretty Good Governmental System thread.)

Phil: Working out a practical framework for a mixed senate is tough, because it would work far better in a political system that didn't have an entrenched party duopoly. That way you could do party-list votes for the at-large positions, and be reasonably sure that the ticket you voted for represented your positions on most of the issues. But yeah, the conception I've had has been that statewide votes be held for half the senators, and a national vote held for the other half. So each state is guaranteed representation, while the proclivities of the population are mirrored more proportionally as well.

If your inquiry was going where I think, then you're right that this could result in an ungodly number of elections on the ballot each year, as people not only had to choose a senator from within the state's pool but, say, fifty senators from the national pool. This, in turn, would almost surely lead to increased apathy and declining voter turnout, as the system would be seen to be far too complex. Not a good perception, however accurate.

If, however, we had sufficient diversity of parties as to enable a party-list vote for the at-large positions, then the thing works itself out rather nicely. You vote for individuals to be your state's senators, and for a party to represent you in the national seats. Then, depending on the proportion of the vote each party received, it would send a certain number of predetermined people to the legislature. It's not the simplest thing in the world, but it's far more representative, I think, than the system we have now.

Of course, if we had a sufficiently diverse party system in the first place, then a tyrannous minority in the Senate would be less of an issue, as coalition-building would be the order of the day. Which brings us back to Sam's original point about a 'winner take all' system benefiting the two major parties at the exclusion of any substantive alternatives.

Ex Tank: Your idea's a good one, I think; certainly it slices the Gordian knot more easily than my talk of proportional representation and consociationalism. But I do think you're right in that you'd definitely run into opposition from people who consider equal senatorial representation to be a hallmark of democracy, not to mention from the Senate itself. I like the notion, though.

John and Timon: Yeah, y'all are right; I had lunch today with a former US congressman and he was telling me that certain states aren't 'winner take all.' (And if a congressman says it, it must be true! ) I prefer the idea of a straight proportional percentage to the systems of Maine and Nebraska; dividing votes mostly by district, it seems to me, is just attacking the problem reductively--people can then make the argument that the districts themselves are 'winner take all.' It's simpler just to give a portion of the total state's electoral votes in proportion with the amount of support the candidate got. I think so, anyway.

[BobT]

If you make the whole Electoral College proportional, you still have the problem where the smaller states get a disproportionate amount of the vote. There are far more than 18 Californians for every Wyomingite. (54-3)

If you made each district a separate electoral vote, you are going to get a lot of gerrymandering and very bitter redistricting fights in most states.

I think the American public probably won't care about changing the method of electing the president until there is some sort of weird outcome, like having the candidate without the largest total of popular votes winning.

[Gadarene]

Originally posted by BobT
I think the American public probably won't care about changing the method of electing the president until there is some sort of weird outcome, like having the candidate without the largest total of popular votes winning. [/b]

This has happened before--most notably with the collusion that ended Reconstruction in 1876--but I suspect you meant in modern times. Even then, though, I'm not sure that would do the trick.

Also, BobT--and forgive me, cos I'm slow today--but how is giving a candidate the number of state electoral votes proportional to his support in that state's election returns substantially unrepresentative? Since the electoral votes are already divvied up to states by population, isn't all you're doing ensuring that the people who voted for the losing candidate have their preference factored into the equation as well?

[KellyM]

Originally posted by Gadarene
If, however, we had sufficient diversity of parties as to enable a party-list vote for the at-large positions, then the thing works itself out rather nicely.[/b]

Since a two-party system is an inherent consequence of single-member majority districts, the only way you're going to get out of that situation is to change Congress to proportional representation or some other sort of hybrid election scheme. As long as each district gets only one representative elected by a majority (or plurality) vote in that district, you're going to get two parties.

And I don't think you're going to find too many people keen on the notion of switching Congress to proportional representation anytime soon.

[BobT]

Originally posted by Gadarene

This has happened before--most notably with the collusion that ended Reconstruction in 1876--but I suspect you meant in modern times. Even then, though, I'm not sure that would do the trick.

Also, BobT--and forgive me, cos I'm slow today--but how is giving a candidate the number of state electoral votes proportional to his support in that state's election returns substantially unrepresentative? Since the electoral votes are already divvied up to states by population, isn't all you're doing ensuring that the people who voted for the losing candidate have their preference factored into the equation as well? [/b]

What I was getting at, and probably failed to get across, was that dividing up the electoral votes proportionally in each state would still not be equal because the states don't have a proportionate number of electoral votes.

I was thinking on a national level, while you were thinking about being proportionate at the state level.

[Gadarene]

Originally posted by KellyM
And I don't think you're going to find too many people keen on the notion of switching Congress to proportional representation anytime soon.

Actually, there's plenty of support for it, especially at the academic level--check out the links I posted above. The entrenched duopoly isn't in favor of it, for obvious reasons, but I suspect that a good portion of the public would be in favor of it, if only they knew what it was.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Well, actually there is one reason the States like "winner". If CA delivers ALL its ECV to Gore, and Gore wins, Gore is "beholden" to the State of CA>

Next, proportional- bad idea. Unless done like maine, or others, where each district is a "winner-take-all". Proportional would lead to 3rd party electors, which would lead to deal-making, and eventually to the kind of parliment you have in Isreal, where you have to have "coalitions". Altho they sound good, they have proved to be de-stablizing. And, no better at getting the "fringe-voter" his share of "power", as he still has no effective votes, just a "part' in a "coalition". So far, all that the '3rd" parties have done in (recent) American is waste newsprint. Bt let them get enuf votes to swing the election- and it could get scary. Imagine Buchanen as VP, a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

[Snooooopy]

Do those who dislike the winner-take-all system also dislike the World Series? Each game is winner-take-all. If the Braves beat the Yankees 30-0 in game one, and the Yankees win the next four games by the score of 1-0, the Yankees win the Series even though the Braves got 30 "votes" to the Yankees' four.

I'm not arguing one way or the other. I'm just relaying something I read in "Discover" magazine a couple of years ago. It's an interesting analogy, I think.