I believe that we should keep the winner-take- all system for three reasons. The first reason I believe the winner-take- all system should stay is because this system has been in place for a long time and it tends to work just fine. The second reason is because the winner-take- all system discourages radical minor party groups. The last reason I think the winner- take- all system should stay is because new parties typically don’t flourish or come about and I think the less parties we have the easier it is on voters.
While there are certain advantages to keeping the winner-take-all system, I think it is time to get rid of this system. Through the winner-take-all system, the American system discourages small parties. Unless a party wins, there is no reward for the votes it gets. Thus, many small parties will form an alliance with a major party because they can't survive on their own. Also, only swing states only get the attention. Candidates don't pay attention to states where they expect to either win or lose by a large margin. And lastly with American becoming more and more likely not to identify with one particular political party, more third parties would be beneficial for the numerous Americans who don't identify as one of the major political parties of Republican or Democratic. (Edwards 267).
I agree that the winner-take-all system should be taken away. In addition to what Maggie said, the government will be more directly represented if the winner-take-all system was taken away. This is because the public can see what percentage of the states actually want a certain candidate in office. Also, to add to Maggie's comment on swing states, I think that if the system were more proportional, the competition to win state could increase. If the candidates and the public saw just how close the margin is between candidates, then those candidates can campaign more competitively to gain those extra voters.
I agree with Taylor's statement in that the winner-take-all system should stay. To add to Taylor's comment, the winner- take-all system allows for the states majority winner to get all of the votes which I believe is the best option. If there are 2 candidates and one gets all of the votes, the loser should not get any votes because it just leads that candidate on to believe they might win. The winner-take-all system just allows an easier process and eliminates losers early on instead of carrying them till the end.
I agree that the winner-take-all system should stay in place. These candidates' ultimate goal is to win the presidency. That is a winner take all system that cannot be changed. Second place receives nothing in the presidential election. Therefore, these hopefuls should get used to this system starting in the primaries. This helps weed out those who have a very small chance of winning and helps the general public see who the small handful of candidates are that are going to actually be in the race. The winner take all system is the most realistic because there can only be one winner in the election; the presidency simply cannot be shared or proportionally distributed.
I believe that we should keep the winner-take- all system for three reasons. The first reason I believe the winner-take- all system should stay is because this system has been in place for a long time and it tends to work just fine. The second reason is because the winner-take- all system discourages radical minor party groups. The last reason I think the winner- take- all system should stay is because new parties typically don’t flourish or come about and I think the less parties we have the easier it is on voters.
ReplyDeleteWhile there are certain advantages to keeping the winner-take-all system, I think it is time to get rid of this system. Through the winner-take-all system, the American system discourages small parties. Unless a party wins, there is no reward for the votes it gets. Thus, many small parties will form an alliance with a major party because they can't survive on their own. Also, only swing states only get the attention. Candidates don't pay attention to states where they expect to either win or lose by a large margin. And lastly with American becoming more and more likely not to identify with one particular political party, more third parties would be beneficial for the numerous Americans who don't identify as one of the major political parties of Republican or Democratic. (Edwards 267).
DeleteI agree that the winner-take-all system should be taken away. In addition to what Maggie said, the government will be more directly represented if the winner-take-all system was taken away. This is because the public can see what percentage of the states actually want a certain candidate in office. Also, to add to Maggie's comment on swing states, I think that if the system were more proportional, the competition to win state could increase. If the candidates and the public saw just how close the margin is between candidates, then those candidates can campaign more competitively to gain those extra voters.
DeleteI agree with Taylor's statement in that the winner-take-all system should stay. To add to Taylor's comment, the winner- take-all system allows for the states majority winner to get all of the votes which I believe is the best option. If there are 2 candidates and one gets all of the votes, the loser should not get any votes because it just leads that candidate on to believe they might win. The winner-take-all system just allows an easier process and eliminates losers early on instead of carrying them till the end.
DeleteI agree that the winner-take-all system should stay in place. These candidates' ultimate goal is to win the presidency. That is a winner take all system that cannot be changed. Second place receives nothing in the presidential election. Therefore, these hopefuls should get used to this system starting in the primaries. This helps weed out those who have a very small chance of winning and helps the general public see who the small handful of candidates are that are going to actually be in the race. The winner take all system is the most realistic because there can only be one winner in the election; the presidency simply cannot be shared or proportionally distributed.
Delete