As far as I understand the system in the US: with first-past-the-post and the gerrymandering that is possible these days with all the data gathered from social media, the only thing you're doing there is to throw your vote away.
Those two things would have to be broken down first. But unfortunately for the people in the US both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party would rather keep that system and abuse it towards their own goal than to get rid of it.
Gerrymandering refers to the drawing of congressional districts. It has nothing to do with presidential voting, which is by state.
Perhaps what you are referring to is 'winner-take-all'. That is not mandated by the Constitution, which says the states are to choose their electors 'in the manner of their choosing'. There is always a lot of wailing about winner-take-all. Of course, what the whiners really mean is OTHER states should get rid of winner-take-all. For instance, after the 2016 election there w
All voting is 'winner take all'. You're just trying to find a way for an almost-winner to actually prevail. Disliking the prospect of a 'winner' not actually winning a 'majority' isn't the reason to change all this. It's realizing that third choices are going to be last, last, last, and your almost winning candidate just didn't overcome that third-place loser.
This is not, BTW, a new problem. Now that it seems to be impacting the candidates of the party ready to change all the rules, well, we HAVE TO CHANGE THE RULES BECAUSE THE OTHER TEAM IS WINNING!
green (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Those two things would have to be broken down first. But unfortunately for the people in the US both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party would rather keep that system and abuse it towards their own goal than to get rid of it.
I am not sure what could be done against that
Re: (Score:3)
Gerrymandering refers to the drawing of congressional districts. It has nothing to do with presidential voting, which is by state.
Perhaps what you are referring to is 'winner-take-all'. That is not mandated by the Constitution, which says the states are to choose their electors 'in the manner of their choosing'. There is always a lot of wailing about winner-take-all. Of course, what the whiners really mean is OTHER states should get rid of winner-take-all. For instance, after the 2016 election there w
Re:green (Score:2)
All voting is 'winner take all'. You're just trying to find a way for an almost-winner to actually prevail. Disliking the prospect of a 'winner' not actually winning a 'majority' isn't the reason to change all this. It's realizing that third choices are going to be last, last, last, and your almost winning candidate just didn't overcome that third-place loser.
This is not, BTW, a new problem. Now that it seems to be impacting the candidates of the party ready to change all the rules, well, we HAVE TO CHANGE THE RULES BECAUSE THE OTHER TEAM IS WINNING!
No, we don't.