The Current Winner Take All System

Rob Richie of the FairVote group, suggests getting rid of winner-take-all elections. When you get 51% of the vote, you represent 100% of the people. If a candidate is obviously going to win a majority of the vote not only do they represent all the people but people don’t engage in the voting process. This change would result in larger areas having more representatives. The system would change from needing a little over half to win the seat to only needing a third of the vote to win. This will ensure more voters’ voices are heard. Richie suggested we change the winner take all votes to having more people elected to balance the representatives. I believe this splitting of vote would help more minorities be heard in a district. I also feel this system may become more cumbersome to getting the

In recent discussion of Democrats and Republican parties, a controversial issue has been whether or not the U.S. should expand their options from more than a two party system. On the one hand, some argue that there should be more choices other than between the two Democrat Party and Republican Party. From this perspective, voters have more of a variety when they vote. On the other hand, some argue that the U.S. should remain as a two party system. In the words of Gary Johnson, one of this view’s main proponents, “The Republicans and Democrats have spent decades trading power back and forth between themselves, and in doing so, have managed to install a two-party duopoly that completely controls America’s political process.” According to this view, Democrats and Republicans are dictating other parties opportunities to get elected. In sum, then, the issue is whether there should be other options rather than a choice between the Democrat and the Republican Party. I agree with Gary Johnson’s view that the Democrat and Republican Parties are controlling America’s

Another problem surrounding the Electoral College system is that it allows one-party states, states that almost always go to one party. In this context, a Democrat who casts a vote in a mostly Republican state feels that his vote is wasted because of no way that state will be won by a Democrat. Besides, the system is based on two-party elections, the Democrat and the Republican leaving Americans with two candidates to choose (Belenky, 364). The voters end up picking the candidate with fewer issues rather than the one they support. In my opinion, people feel that Electoral College has single-handedly defeated

Past elections have proven that our current electoral system is insufficient and an alternative is needed in order to pull our country out of

A two party system is strong and influential although it allows lesser parties to exist and have an influence. As a result a majority party will form the government and the minority party will form the opposition, and coalitions of the lesser parties are possible. These systems can also be multi-party systems. The Two-party sytem has advantages and disadvantages they consist of: Advantages,: It can lead to political stability which leads, in turn, to economic growth, two-party systems have been seen as preferable to multi-party systems because they are simple to govern, while multi-party systems can sometimes lead to parliament. The disadvantages: Two-party systems have been criticized extreme views, and putting a second opinion on debate within a nation, two-party systems for fail to provide enough options since only two choices are permitted on the ballot, the problem with having only two parties is that the nation loses "the ability for things to bubble up from the body politic and give voice to things that aren’t being voiced by the major parties." Multi-party governments permit wider and more diverse viewpoints in government, and encourage dominant parties to make deals with weaker parties to form winning coalitions. I think having a two-party system is ideal because neither major party is strong enough to win without bringing up specific topics that they believe in or their ideology of their party. The way the Republicans and Democrats present

“It is a natural evolution of our mass consciousness to begin to see third parties as a viable option; it is reflected in the corrupt and broken two-party system.” Michelle Augello-Page, an author and writer, uses this quote to speak to the frustration Americans feel about the two-party political system. Since the 1850’s, the Democrats and Republicans have received the majority of the popular vote, while third party candidates struggle election after election (Schechter). The two major party candidates don’t always speak to the issues many Americans want to be addressed. Therefore, Americans must consider voting for third party candidates to ensure democracy works for everyone.

Another reason for the insignificance of third parties and the reason for the two party system is the first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system. Unfortunately for third parties, the two main parties always tend to come out with the majority even if they don’t win the popular vote. An example of the unfairness of this voting system is in 2008 the independent party of America managed to get 1 in every 5 votes but still didn’t manage to gain seats. Having said that, FPTP in theory allows for a strong stable government with a hefty majority providing they dominate congress and the legislature.

The decision on how to choose who these electors would vote for was left up to the states. Most states eventually decided to use the general ticket system where all of that state’s votes go to one candidate, whoever receives a majority of the votes in that state. The system for solving ties or failure to win a majority in the electoral college is to send the vote to the House of Representatives. There, each state is given one vote to cast for president. A vote is taken until one candidate has a majority.

In the United States, the Electoral College determines the victor of a national election. Each state has its own number of electoral votes, which is determined by state population. This system is a “winner takes all” system. Which means the candidate with 50 percent or more of the votes in an individual state gets all of that states electoral votes. The 2016 presidential election will have 538 electoral votes, this means that the election will be decided who is the first candidate to 270 votes. Some people have seen this system as outdated and unjust. Many are looking at a way to change the system and others would like to do away with the system

First, the two-party system does not create an equal policy in society because it does not allow people to get far if they are not within either of the two parties. The idea of the winner-take-all electoral system is the hostile terrain for third parties because the odds are in favor of the bigger parties (Conray). The bigger parties over the years seem to have the upper hand within the government, and especially within the elections.

If no one wins a majority on the first round, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. For voters, that means if the eliminated candidate was your first choice, then your second-choice vote will be applied in the next round of counting.

The nation is aware of the benefits political parties hold, and they are also are aware of their hindrances. Numerous Americans oppose the political party system, because of their potential to negatively hinder our society. They disagree with the system so much that they would rather see the political party system abolished than see it reformed. I understand fully that the political party system has their issues. For instance, our political party system does not offer equality for all parties. In our society, our party system operates under the two-party system, if we had three or more parties running they would not have a fair chance. We only examine are two leading political parties in our ballots. The system lacks equality which can be extremely unsetting to voters who support the less popular parties. We are known as the land of equal opportunity, yet we contradict ourselves. In addition, political parties can be selfish and they do not always focus on what is beneficial to our nation as a whole. Political parties will focus on their interest and their end goals that will only benefit them. The list goes on but I do not believe abolishing the party system is the answer. Abolishing the political party system would be to extreme, but I do believe the party system needs to be reformed. Instead of parties receiving funds from wealthy corporations there should be

Democratic theorist, Robert Dahl once said, “…every member must have an equal and effective opportunity to vote, and all votes must be counted as equal.” This quote greatly summarizes what the Electoral College system means; every person in the United States is guaranteed one vote. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to elect who serves in the government, and we are given that opportunity through this system. This is what the Founding Fathers came up with in order to solve the problems they faced over 200 years ago. However, some have opposed this system is not fit for this democracy, and argue that other systems would work more fairly. On the contrary, I strongly believe that the Electoral College system should be kept because it is the fairest way to elect the President.

The (FPTP) system is also known as the 'winner-take-all' system, in which the candidate with the most votes gets elected. FPTP voting methods can be used for single and multiple member elections. In a single member election the candidate with the highest number, not necessarily a majority, of votes is elected.

America is vastly known as a country boundlessly pursuing equality in all facets of life. In this seemingly endless quest for equal opportunity, there has been one lurking negation; our election system. The addition to equal representation in public funding and on the ballot will create variability and allow Americans to entrust their vote in a political format that more closely aligns with democratic philosophy. Therefore, a shift away from a bipartisan, a two party, dominated election system would not only be a healthy change for American electoral satisfaction, but for the future of third party politics. Unfortunately affluence and inherent wealth have played a large role in this divide between a true democratic election and our present biased, broken, and benyne system.