Why must something that makes so much sense face so much opposition? Welcome to American politics. Proportional representation is the only way to go with the Electoral College, but America's two major parties are standing in the way (again). Dems accuse Reps of trying to manipulate the Electoral College to produce a Republican president. Whatever. It needs to be done. Your take?
Republicans hit obstacles altering electoral college
I believe we need a proportional system to be a true democracy, and allow each candidate an equal opportunity for representation. Not only will a proportional system allow Third Parties to have a seat in the House, the system will better represent the people and make their vote actually matter and not be part of the "spoilers." Maybe having a proportional system will lead to more government participation?
ReplyDeleteBianca Alonso-Bermudez p.2
The proportional system would be more beneficial to the United States. This system allows an accurate reflection of representation and accommodates the people's viewpoints, more than the winner takes all approach. It is understandable to see why Democrats, or Republicans, may not favor this idea because they want to have as much representation as possible. However, it should not be about political ideology and having more power, but a fair split of what the people want. The winner takes all system does hardly anything to accommodate third party participants and makes it almost impossible for any third party to rise and succeed. Our voting system needs to incorporate not only views because of plurality, but views by the minority.
ReplyDeleteMarina Leyvas-Bruce
period 2
I think having a proportional system is a good idea because it would represent the people in a better way; giving the US a chance to have true democracy. Representing all citizens may also invite more citizens to come out and vote. The Democratic and Republic parties are basically the only parties anyone usually hears about and their parties should be more commonly known. The people who are part of a third party but may not want to vote for a third party candidate because of the concept that they could never be elected president may consider actually voting for a candidate from the party they identify themselves with. It is uncertain if we will change to a proportional system because neither the Democratic/Republican parties seem willing to give up power.
ReplyDeleteMary Saba P2
It is very clear that the proportional system is the right path to follow. It is time for politicians, Republicans and Democrats, to set aside the hunger for influence and place the interests of the American people first. This system would aid in that process - a more equal and fair representation could be obtained. However, it is unlikely that those in power will go through with this plan, and that is quite unfortunate.
ReplyDelete- Tanner Rouse (Period 3).
The proportional representation should be implemented into our political system. Instead of focusing two major political parties, a proportional system would give third-party candidates, and would give more equal representation in the Electoral college. The plurality system we have now makes it harder for third-party candidates to be represented, making citizens of the Unites States opinion and beliefs unheard. Instead, we are basically pressures into voting for one of the two major political parties that we probably do not have the same political ideals as. The United States was founded on the ideals of representation and for our political system to not have much of a representative government is baffling to me.
ReplyDeleteAngie Perez P.3
Again, I'm going to play the devil's advocate on this issue. America is right for maintaining a winner takes all system. Thought history, radical ideas start with just a few thoughts spread over time when a population is dissatisfied with its nation. The nazi party started off small, with a small percentage voting a small proportion in. But once they were given the platform to release their fiery rhetric, they were able to convince many more to join until they took power. Let's say in America, as cynical and untrusting of current ways as we are, a radical party under a different name starts saying things to appeal to our feelings of governments disinterest in society. Sure it's only a small percentage that votes, but that small percentage could still be enough to get a few seats in the house. Through this outlet they are given, and possibly through corrupt means, they could spread their ideology and get publicly endorsed until they have a majority of the house, and eventually even our nation's leader, the president- who has control over who gets placed in the Supreme Court once a current member dies or retires. And if the party is as malicious as the nazi party they could "convince them to retire or else an unfortunate accident would happen" and bam, all three branches are now controlled by this new age nazi party. Our country just became a modern-Nazi-Germany thanks to the proportional system. But with our current majority system, it would be systematically impossible for a third party to get elected, thus preventing anything of the such. Some may argue that it's unfair to the third parties with beneficial, non-radical ideologies, but that's not the case. Sure they are not getting physical represent ion by members. But the few members they get are not enough to make any actual impact in the government. The system now, though, is the most beneficial to them. Not only are they not wasting a house vote, but their ideologies are then incorporated by the major parties so they get the change they want regardless if their ideas are appealing to a large enough group of voters.
ReplyDelete-Issa A. Sweis of period 2
I believe that proportional representation is a much better and more efficient way to voice the beliefs of all citizens and not just the majority. This would upset those who believe in the winner takes all approach because it takes power away from them and they are not in total control. However, it is a more fair way to represent all citizens and also helps to incorporate beliefs and ideas that aren't included in the majority vote so all issues are addressed and thus leads to results and solutions.
ReplyDeleteAlexya See
P.2
I feel that implementing a proportional system into the Electoral College would be a better distribution of public voting. Right now, the winner-take-all system only accounts for the popular majority vote of each state and grants that majority candidate all of the state’s electoral votes. This completely disregards the votes and opinions of the other votes cast. Democratic and Republican candidates use this system to heavily rely on states with large populations, such as California and Texas, since they typically vote for the same party’s candidate per presidential election. Presidential candidates would not even have to campaign in these states if the popular majority vote is typically predetermined to favor one party either way. Why should a candidate be granted all of a state’s votes even though they may not necessarily have all of that state’s support? This is a primary factor in the gradual decrease of civic competence and voter turnout; if someone’s vote/beliefs are going to be disregarded unless they are for the “predetermined” candidate in that state, then what’s the point of voting either way? To join the bandwagon and only vote for the popular majority candidate for your vote to actually matter? Switching to a proportional system would better account for what the plurality of American voters want since agreeing on a majority is typically hard to accomplish. It might also lead to more attention diverted to third party candidates, thus increasing voter turnout since people will discover their political ideology and want to stick with it if they feel like their votes matter.
ReplyDeleteRoberto Martinez P.2
The proportional system should be used in the United States because this system gives voters and 3rd parties a chance to be heard. It's sad that such a simple solution is being opposed by the two main parties just because this system doesn't appeal to them, even though we should be thinking about the people of the United States, not just about parties of the US. This system would let 3rd parties be able to have a seat in the house (no matter how small the percentage is) and if the two big parties want a majority they would need to gain the electoral votes of the 3rd parties. The Proportional system will probably not be passed because of the two main parties, but it would be better for America if it was.
ReplyDelete-Jacinda Clay Period 2
I agree with the idea of the U.S using the proportional for the third party candidates it would bring more popularity and it also gives fair electoral votes to each party. The W.T.A. helps the system to completely neglects votes earned by other parties and also its unfair to run an election
ReplyDeleteTyree Baker per.2
I do feel that proportional representation will more equally represent the people. However, what I can't pinpoint is what major political party it will help. We've learned earlier that Democrats believe higher voter turnout will help them, while Republicans believe it will hurt them. Applying that to this same principle of getting more voices heard, one would assume that it would benefit the Democrats. But, after reading this article, I am undecided. It almost seems that it would hurt the Democrats, but most Republicans are against it. All in all, I feel that the proportional system should be put in place, no matter what party it hurts or helps, if we want to be a truly "democratic" country.
ReplyDeleteSarah Hidayat p.2
I am in favor of a proportional system except that it would probably never be implemented due to the fact that the Democratic and Republican parties are both selfish. Neither will let the other get an upper hand in getting votes for the presidency. But if the system was to be made possible, it would allow the population of each state make an impact on who is to be the future president instead of a winner-takes-all method that would not care for the real representation of votes. This tactic would be the most fair, but the major political factions would lose a lot of power. Even though the proportional system is a great and fair way of politics, the major parties of the U.S. would never implement this act wide-scale due to the facts that the parties are extremely selfish about their powers and never wants to let the opposing parties get the upper hand in any types of elections.
ReplyDeleteRonald Law P.3
Like most, I agree that it's time that America move onto a proportional system. Its time that 3rd parties get a direct say in the government rather than having to take a side with either the Democrats or Republicans. Having that done, it would bring us closer to the true representation of equality this country is known for (even though the equality part is much exaggerated). But all in all, the system of "Winner takes all" is quite redundant, and needs to be changed. There's only 1 winner, and its always either a Democrat or Republican. Things need to change.
ReplyDeleteStephanie Lam period 2
DeleteI do not believe that the republicans are manipulating the Electoral College to produce a Republican president because first of all even if they focus on swing states to go proportional representation its still not going to be enough because those swing states will also include democratic percentages that will be counted as well. Honestly the only way they can get majority of electoral votes is if they convince democratic states to go proportional in order for them to win. It would be the moral solution to make all the states proportional to make it equal for all candidates, but parties that are on top are not going to let that happen.
ReplyDeleteViktoria Kuladzhyan p.2
Truthfully, after reading this article I'm more confused that when i started it.It's obvious that the proportional system approach to voting is debatable the most constitutional in the idea of representation. By using the proportional system we more accurately represent the majority of the country. However, as usual any political change proposed by a single party is in turn assumed as a power move by the opposing party, so even though the proportional system is the better way to approach voting, Democrats will find a way to accuse the Republican party of proposing it solely to favor their party, and visa versa. If the Democratic party had suggested the proportional system then Republicans would have found a way to claim bias, sadly its just the way our politics work.
ReplyDeleteAshleigh Correz; period.3
I don't think implementing the proportional system would be good for either party because I think that each party would then have to spend money in states that were before a sure bet, but now would be uncertain on how many actual electoral college votes they acquired. I think the WTA system should still be used because then each party wouldn't have a budget to campaign properly.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Maly P2
I agree that proportional representation is the fair method of distributing votes equally in the Electoral College. With this system, the minority would have their views heard unlike the Winner-Take-All system making it impossible to have everyone's politcal ideology matter. The proportional system would give states the real representation by the popular vote of the people. In the article, the Democrats and Republicans don't favor it for it can hurt ones party or help the other party. Given that all parties would have the chance of winning the election with proportional representation, it gives the country a more democratic approach in getting the votes and support from all states.
ReplyDeleteAnnalyn Arevalo p.3
The proportional system if used within elections, rather than the WTA system, would create a system that would truly help represent fairness. Such a system allows for equality amongst each canidate. This of course is not an ideal system for the 2 major parties in America who rely on WTA. Both the democrats and republicans lose electoral votes if we were to switch systems. Campaigning would alter drastically, all states would be priority, and there would be no exact predictions or entitlement. As stated earlier, it's not entirely sure which party this benefits, which is kinda the point. Many Americans fail to look beyond the 2 major parties and often confine themselves within their groups. Our WTA system takes away from the smaller parties and doesn't demonstrate who we are as a nation
ReplyDeleteJoseph Slmani
P2
I am in favor of change to the proportional system. This would result in a more direct representation of what the people want. It could also possibly result in a greater voter turnout because there would still be motivation for people to vote even if they are voting for the candidate that didn't get the popular vote in their state.
ReplyDeleteAbby Salmon
P. 2
I can't think of any reason why a proportional system isn't a valid and needed change that the country should make. It would finally give a voice to third parties and their millions of supporters who would otherwise be forced to either side with a party they don't identify or agree with, or throw their vote away on a candidate who stands no chance. Of course the Republicans and Democrats are intimidated by this system because it would take votes away from their own parties, but wouldn't that just mean that they'd have to work harder on mobilizing their voters and getting them to participate in politics? If so, then couldn't this system also potentially help to bring up the low political participation rates of the United States alongside improving representation? I think in the long run, a proportional system could really benefit the nation by solving more than one issue at once.
ReplyDelete-Adrienne Sanchez, p.2
US should bring proportional representation system into the voting system. Because it is a more fair and give both party equal chance of voting. It just represent people better. People's opinions can be heard more accurately. In addition, it also gives chances to other small parties. I personally believe electoral college have too much power, having a system like this will reduce and diatribe power more evenly. Plus is represent the public opinions better!
ReplyDeleteOlivia Lu
Period 2 US should bring proportional representation system into the voting system. Because it is a more fair and give both party equal chance of voting. It just represent people better. People's opinions can be heard more accurately. In addition, it also gives chances to other small parties. I personally believe electoral college have too much power, having a system like this will reduce and diatribe power more evenly. Plus is represent the public opinions better!
Olivia Lu
Period 2
Sorry I can't do it on my phone, so I send through computer. Accidentally did it twice.
DeleteI do believe that we should transition to a proportional system. I'm the article the republicans were stated as going for a power grab because of bringing forth the idea, however, I believe the Democratic Party would be said to have the same intentions if offering this idea. No matter which way it comes up it will be seen as a power grab to the party with the upper hand. The system is unfair though. It does not represent the American people accurately whatsoever. It needs to be changed so a persons vote can mean something. With a change implemented, an increase in polls could be seen. Third parties could get more of a chance and the campaigning for president would completely change in a good way. States would not be completely set to one party or another, giving fair chances to all.
ReplyDeleteCollin Chouinard p.3
In* the article
Deletewould support proportional representation in every state because it gives people as a whole more representation for the things that they believe in. By integrating proportional representation, political parties that do not dominate in a specific state will still have representation in votes within their state. For example all 55 electoral votes will not just go to the Democratic Party. They would be split up depending on how the popular vote went. Also third party votes would no longer go unnoticed. A vote would matter to each party, possibly increasing the amount of votes third parties would get due to the fact they have a slightly increased chance of getting noticed. Proportional representation would strongly favor public opinion.
ReplyDeleteLauren Casillas p.2
I
DeleteAs a country, we need to take on proportional representation. That way each opinion will have a say especially in the House of Reps, each party including the third parties would have a chance to have at least one person in the HoR and that is the only fair way to run this country because everyone's views differ. California is not all democratic but because that's how the super majorities run their elections, that's how we have to keep our representation. We refuse to change our WTA position in elections and that's why our voter turnout is decreasing. Only allowing the president to be a republican or democrat is a severe problem and it needs to be changed
ReplyDeleteCarissa Martinez P.3
DeleteI fully believe that a proportional system would benefit the US and should be put in place, BUT it is never going to happen. Id say due to tradition among other things. A proportional system would give some spots to the 3rd party candidates for the Electoral College because although they have a very small percentage of popular votes it counts for something. Every party being equally represented would be true democracy. Having had a two party system for so long people arent even exposed to 3rd parties nor would want to change that I believe. It is the way it is and a plethora of people don't do well with change, so why change it. Also i think greed takes place highly among the 2 main parties and they would not want any representation that was not republican or democratic. So although true democracy IS possible, it won't occur. WTA system gives the two main parties power and representation that they would never give up regardless of what they accuse each other of.
ReplyDeleteMicaela Fiedler p.2
The proportional system clearly seems like the way to go because it is the most fair way to divide representatives among the different parties in each state. By changing to this system, it might allow for more people to be excited about elections due to people feeling like they have more of a voice since there could actually contribute to who they vote for. Unlike the plurality system where the "winner takes all" and that's really not fair or at least not as fair as the proportional system.
ReplyDeleteSammie Soto
Period 3
Although the Republican party most likely proposed a proportional system of electoral votes in order to benefit themselves, the system would be a beneficial change to our voting system. This proportional system would make most votes matter, while winner-take-all completely disregards many of the peoples' votes for parties that do not receive the plurality in a state. With the proportional system, third parties would have a higher chance of landing an electoral college vote because if they make up a percentage of the popular vote in a state, they receive that percentage of the electoral votes. Also, if electoral votes were based on congressional districts, if a third party dominated a district, it could receive an electoral vote. I think that the Democrats are only opposing this system because they have been benefiting and winning from winner-take-all, but if they were to switch places with the Republicans, they too would propose new methods of electoral voting.
ReplyDelete-Susu Le P.2
If I were to support a system for the electoral college I would support a proportional system. Compared to the plurality system, the proportional system is more fair and allows for people who have a different view than the majority in their state to have their voices heard. However, I understand and see the Democrats opinion and opposition to this system, but a proportional system is what would benefit the people more and fairly represent their opinions. The article points out pursuing a proportional system will cause a lot of problems, but pursuing this system is what will uphold equality in our nation.
ReplyDeleteEmberly Reyes Per.3
Since the birth of America, representation has always been cherished and fought for. It is arguably the only effective way in which everyone, no matter race, ethnicity, sexuality, and gender are accounted for and have an equal say. This shouldn't be any different for the voting system. With this new system, votes would actually matter and people's external efficacy would increase. With such an important form of democracy taking place, it is important everyone's voices are heard and voting based on proportion is the manner in which to accomplish that goal. Winner takes all fails to represent all in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy.
ReplyDeletethis is hardly the first time that our political system has left out minority groups for the best interest of a larger faction so it kinda baffles me as to why we're stressing over the electoral college right now when this kind of oppression takes place on a larger scale every day, BUT with that being said i agree that the electoral college system is wack af and it makes much more sense for us to use a proportional system, given that we're supposed to be a representative democracy and all that. WTA is contradictory to the fundamental principles of our nation and it just doesn't make sense in general. with most Americans politically identifying as independent it only makes sense that we accommodate more to them rather than to force this binary upon an ideologically multifaceted population.
ReplyDeletekieran jackson p3
DeleteA clear downside to winner-take-all voting is that losing candidates receive nothing even if they win a substantial number of votes. In a race with only two candidates, it is possible that 49.9% of the voting population receive no representation whatsoever. This disenfranchises those who participated and perpetuates the tyranny of the majority that the framers of the Constitution were trying to avoid. The winner-takes-all system protects the dominance of the two primary parties while restraining the others. The leap of faith advocates of winner-take-all systems take is that supporters of losing candidates will be duly represented by either the candidate who wins, even if that candidate is their ideological opposite, or by candidates elected elsewhere. They must also believe that voters opinions can be boiled into two basic options, as typically happens in competitive winner-take-all elections in the United States. By contrast, proportional representation voting systems give voting parties a greater opportunity to be heard and to be represented regardless of size. As someone who does not identify with either of the current dominant parties in America, I am inclined to prefer the proportional representation system. It seems far more logical and aligns itself with the ideals that our nation was founded under. To put it simply, it's more "fair."
ReplyDeleteTasmia Hussain
P3
I support amending the electoral system to become proportional rather than winner takes all. Proportional systems have been shown to mirror the will of the people much better than WTA. While this would have not been desired in the country's infancy due to the peoples incapability to become an informed voter, this time has passed and we are currently living in an era surrounded by credible sources of information for almost everything. People would feel more comfortable voting for their true beliefs, and party that shares these beliefs. This with knowing that their votes won't be wasted by voting third party in a WTA system, significantly strengthens third party power in the US. Even worse in our current system, your vote can still be wasted, as even voting Republican in a solid liberal state, like California, and vice versa will effectively waste your vote as there is almost no chance the opposing candidate will take the state. Using a proportional system will more accurately represent the beliefs of our people and elect a president that most accurately reflects these beliefs. Even something as small as a majority Winner-takes-all system will allocate more power to third parties and therefore the people, as this will require coalitions between the major and minor parties. If the people are to be able to select the president, we should at least enact a system that caters to the people and not to the parties.
ReplyDeleteAnthony Noyola P.2
I believe that we should use the proportional system, as it incorporates the actual will of the people more. It takes into account all of the votes that were made and allows everyone to voice their ideals no matter how small. The plurality system disenfranchises many citizens beliefs and ideals because the third party is never heard out. The Democrats only oppose this because they can lose votes to the third parties but the result of this change has a more important effect on the nation as a whole. I believe that parties need to put their self-interest aside and focus on something that is beneficial to their country.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Murad p2
Proportional distribution appears to be the most logical, when compared to our current "winner takes all" style; the accuracy of vote count is limited through our current method. It is almost as though we are lacking a true democracy and causes me to question whether one's vote is truly crucial to an election. The inadequacy within our current system is disturbingly ineffective when taking into account all votes. it is too flawed, and simply
ReplyDeleteunfair to an opposing party.
-Myana (period 3)
I believe the proportional system is the most fair way to go and it should be instilled in the United States. I mean sure, the winner takes all system is what seems to be working now but is it only because that's the way it's been for years with no opposition? I say yes. I think that a good way to prove the proportional system is good for the U.S is to test it out in certain states like they said in the article. An example of a kind of proportional system is the way in which Nebraska chooses their electoral college members which isn't completely proportional but it's much more fitting than the W.T.A system. Therefore, yes I do think the proportional system is much better for our country than the current system.
ReplyDeleteScarlett Alvarez P. 3
I think that proportional representation is the best method for representing the entire nation. The winner-takes-all system that we currently have is unfair to the vast number of people who do not support the candidate that received the most votes in their state. The views of these people are completely disregarded, and they have absolutely no representation whatsoever in the Electoral College; therefore, they have no say in determining the next President of the United States. A proportional representative system would represent the nation most accurately because almost every person's views would be represented by the electors sent to the Electoral College. What irritates me is that both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party do not care about whether a system of representation represents the people most accurately. Both parties only care about their own selfish motives; they only defend the system that is most appealing to their interests and would allow them to win the presidency. The two parties refuse to acknowledge that they should be serving the interests of the people rather than their own.
ReplyDelete-Susi Le, P.2
If the American government were to change from the winner-takes-all system to the proportional system of the Electoral College, the effect on the major party's end would be immense. Ignoring all party bias would cause many to believe the proportional system is more representative, more democratic, and more inclusive of the beliefs of the people. This is correct. In doing so, there would be opportunities for third party candidates to obtain power and be heard in the national government. With the winner-take-all system, it's impossible for any third parties to move up the political ladder. The two main political parties are intevening for obvious reasons: to protect their superiority in politics. If one day the system changes, our government will be a more representative, all-inclusive group of ideas; however, this may bring a decline to Democrats and Republicans.
ReplyDeleteKristina Heisser period 3
For something to make so much sense, but face so much opposition goes to show me that people just want to keep power. People know how to campaign for an entire state's vote instead of a district. They know how to campaign and advertise, they know what has tried and failed, and they know what has tried and succeeded. This is why I feel politicians and other people oppose to this change so much. They want what is familiar, what they know how to win and what they can manipulate in their favor. With a new system there's no saying what will work, you can surmise what you THINK might work but there is no saying if it will or not. People generally like what is familiar and what is unknown is usually scary to politicians because it could lead to either or in both extremes.
ReplyDeleteThis new system would encourage us to vote because our vote matters more in this system as opposed to winner take all. "Dems accuse Reps of trying to manipulate the Electoral College to produce a Republican president."
I do think, in politics, it is rare to find someone doing something for the sake of good. Yes they could be doing something to get more power to DO good but finding someone purely doing something out of regard for what is truly just and right is a bit unbeknownst to me.
ashley abalos p2" 2
DeleteI believe proportional representation is a good idea because it makes the voting of some candidates matter. With the winner takes all system some candidates votes don't even matter because the other party will win anyway. If a party agreed to this the other party would't agree because they would feel like they could loose some of the big states they have control over.
ReplyDeleteTayari Venable
per.2
I do believe that proportional representation is the best over all to get all the peoples ideas into the play and get the actual peoples say in who they want for president given the area they live in. But I also believe that winner takes all has some benefits because if third parties received votes then it would make the vote for president go to 3rd parties that aren't going to win so they take from the party that most resembles them self. While 3rd parties needs to be heard they will hurt the vote and the candidate in he republican or democratic party that most resembles their ideas.
ReplyDeleteAntonis Panagiotis Christodoulou
per. 2
[absent]
ReplyDeleteThroughout the blog, the idea of Democrats believing change of the electoral college as a technique to rig the Dem win, is redundant; however, maybe the problem would most effectively be resolved if we observed past our personal parties and gain, and purely contemplated the good of the people and the country. What is the most reflective way of representing our country? It would probably be proportion, rather than majority. Though a small faction cannot win (because unpopular/radical idea) it still would be more likely to be integrated into the Dem/Rep party. However, some have argued insidious factions may take power in house of representatives. Would Madison's philosophy written in Federalist 10 still work if we allowed detrimental parties in the House? Would a large republic still prohibit these parties? I think yes. Relief is supplemented with the Republican principle; the majority still contains the ability to outvote sinister views. The proportional method would most accurately reflect American views.
Eunice Choi
p. 2
Although I don't see the implementation of a proportional system making a big difference in the results of elections necessarily, it is definitely a step in the right direction towards a system that better represents the will of the people and allows for more choices in regards to our elections. The proportional system will likely just force the large parties to absorb certain ideas of third parties sometimes, but at least the third party candidates will have to be acknowledged and will probably receive at least a few electoral votes, making the average voter more aware of them.
ReplyDelete-Adam Witkowski P.3
I believe that a proportional system is much more efficient than the one we have now. It allows third party candidates to actually have a chance of winning, and it is a more accurate idea of what the people actually want. With the winner-takes-all system, third party candidates are never going to have a chance because either republicans or democrats are going to win the section. I think even a majority system is more efficient than what we have now. At least with a majority system, if the winner does not have at least 50% voter support, they do not get the votes from the electoral college.
ReplyDeleteChris Weiland P 3
I believe that a proportional system is effective and necessary to up hold our claim to being a true democracy. The winner take all system has major draw backs like the wrong people coming into office for the fact that even though the majority of the people would rather have another candidate. Also the people who win hardly ever have more than 50 percent of the U.S population. Meaning no one every really gets a majority vote it's whoever is first to 270 wins. It's honestly stupid and I feel is sort of non/anti American to think that someone we don't even want can become president. All man created equal but are votes are not treated as such which is a major issue in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteDiante Lowe
P.3
P.S. I did not have access to a computer until today.
I feel as if a proportional system would be a more logical and beneficial way of living in the United States. If we would like to continue to be a true representative democracy, it should be an equally proportional representation of power to give an equal opportunity for all political parties; representing all citizens. I also feel that it would only be fair if 3rd parties and Americans were finally heard, instead of having this "winner-takes-all" mentality. As it states in the article that all states but two participate in the "winner-takes-all" system, half a dozen states are under consideration of the proportional system. Although we might be far from it, it seems to be crucial to making our country greater. A proportional system can be the change we need.
ReplyDelete(Absent)