Winner-Take-All or Proportional: Which is Better?

B

Bonestorm

Thrillhouse
Two graphs: one of the Democrats and the delegates under a winner-take-all and proportional system and one of Republicans with the same.

On the Democratic side, which uses the proportional system, a winner-take-all format would actually make the contest more competitive whereas on the Republican side, which uses many winner-take-all contest, the proportional system would make the system more competitive.

The Democrats:

delegatesdemocrats.jpg


The Republicans:

delegatesrepubs.jpg



It seems that no one method is better, they're just different. Having said that, looking at the Republicans, it seems the winner-take-all format really screwed Romney.
 
I've seen some people critiscize the proportional system as the Democrats "child-like" mentality, where they want to give everyone a gold star and be nice.

But it's not like they split it even. They give to each what each deserved, no more, no less. If one person "Won" 55% of the vote, they get 55 of the gold stars, and the other guy gets 45. Under winner take all, Republicans give a person who deserved 55 gold stars all of them. And maybe that does tell you the Republican mindset.

Besides that, winner take all is just like giving the majority the right to cast the vote of the minority.
 
Last edited:
Besides that, winner take all is just like giving the majority the right to cast the vote of the minority.

I don't know why you edited that out, it's a really good point and a simple way to put it.
 
Epicurus said:
Besides that, winner take all is just like giving the majority the right to cast the vote of the minority.

I don't know why you edited that out, it's a really good point and a simple way to put it.
Click to expand...

I was trying to simplify it. I decided to put it back in, though.
 
I meant simple as a compliment, whenever I try to extoll the virtues of PR over WtA I end up getting bogged down in trying to explain that same point.
 
Epicurus said:
I meant simple as a compliment, whenever I try to extoll the virtues of PR over WtA I end up getting bogged down in trying to explain that same point.
Click to expand...

LOL, I got a lot of experience trying to defend changing systems before. There just aren't many times in real life I wouldn't feel embarrassed to show my deep knowledge on the subject.
 
Watermark said:
LOL, I got a lot of experience trying to defend changing systems before. There just aren't many times in real life I wouldn't feel embarrassed to show my deep knowledge on the subject.
Click to expand...

As a poli-sci major and noted politico, I get some slack about about nerdishly deep political knowledge but I do know what you mean.

When someone mentions in conversation how weak the dollar is, I usually restrain the urge to embark on a "Gold Standard" diatribe.
 
Epicurus said:
Why would you prefer WtA for the general?

Which is what I'm assuming you're implying.
Click to expand...
In a two person race PR is worthless. I would prefer a system more like a Parliamentary system for Congress where PR was implemented, but with knowledge of who you are electing rather than just voting party and forcing people to fall within the parameters of that party.
 
Damocles said:
In a two person race PR is worthless. I would prefer a system more like a Parliamentary system for Congress where PR was implemented, but with knowledge of who you are electing rather than just voting party and forcing people to fall within the parameters of that party.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's the problem with proportional. Party-lists are the only way to get very proportional without making the ballot ridiculously large, but Americans would never accept losing that political independence. Sometimes, I just don't think that other people who support PR understand that.

STV is an excellent system, it's just fucking complicated. And it has the humongous ballot problem. In Australia, one state elects the 22 members of their legislature in a single statewide district by STV. In the last election, there were more than 200 names on the ballot. No one knows anyone on the ballot, and most people just check off the box that allows the party of their choice to allocate their preferences. So, basically, it's become like a ridiculously complicated party list.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Let's just cancel democracy if we're going to be so squeamish about giving people choices.
Click to expand...

You can't expect the populace to know the individual political positions of 200 different people. You can't go extremely proportional without sacrificing political independents. You can go moderately propotional, but the PR extremists wouldn't accept that.
 
Epicurus said:
But it would force politicians to campaign differently and reduce the importance of "key states".
Click to expand...
No, it would increase the importance of larger population states in a PR system with only two persons with a valid ability to win.
 
Watermark said:
You can't expect the populace to know the individual political positions of 200 different people. You can't go extremely proportional without sacrificing political independents. You can go moderately propotional, but the PR extremists wouldn't accept that.
Click to expand...

Yes you can expect it. Of course, the parties like the control of preselecting all candidates, but fuck all that corrupt shit.
 
Epicurus said:
But it would force politicians to campaign differently and reduce the importance of "key states".
Click to expand...

The main problem I'd have with doing it in the general would be that it just wouldn't be very proportional. Most states just don't have enough electors. If we could insure each state had at least 20 or so electors, it would work better. But the Democrats are having problems with this right now.
 
Damocles said:
No, it would increase the importance of larger population states in a PR system with only two persons with a valid ability to win.
Click to expand...

LOL. Allocating electoral votes proportionally would VASTLY reduce the importance of large states. Just think about it - in the 50's, a constitutional ammendment to allocate votes proportionally passed the senate, but died a bitter death in the house. The one saving grave of the current system to large states is that, by throwing all of their votes together, they get a much larger voice. The extra votes smaller states is actually probably a smaller part of the system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top