Follow Ballotpedia. Click here to follow election results! Winner-take-all or winner-takes-all is an electoral system in which a single political party or group can elect every office within a given district or jurisdiction. Although proportional and semi-proportional voting methods are used in the United States, winner-take-all voting methods remain the norm.
There are several such winner-take-all voting methods used in the United States:. There are a few apparent differences between a winner-take-all system and a proportional representation system:. Because winner-take-all elections allow the single largest politically cohesive group to elect every office in a jurisdiction, they may result in racial minority vote dilution in places where voting is racially polarized.
For that reason, they may be illegal under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Such vote dilution is typically remedied by drawing or redrawing district lines for single-winner districts and including at least one district in which the racial minority population will be able to elect a candidate of choice. In some cases, however, vote dilution is remedied by changing the winner-take-all voting method to a proportional or semi-proportional voting method.
Ballotpedia features , encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an error. Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued expansion.
Share this page Follow Ballotpedia. What's on your ballot? Jump to: navigation , search. One theory is that winner-take-all scenarios boost voter turnout and that high turnout is good for democracy. Both are major states. Both held primaries for both major parties. There is no question Trump won Florida and Clinton won Illinois, but the results were very different.
Meanwhile, though Clinton won Illinois with So, which system is better? The idea here, among political scientists and cognitive psychologists, is that voters in close elections are less likely to vote in proportional systems and more likely to vote in winner-take-all systems.
Susie Derkins votes for the blue party and becomes the 51st voter for that party. In truth, of course, people realise that there is a better chance of winning the lottery than there is of being Susie Derkins in the above hypothetical. In Illinois, nearly two million people voted — the chance of being the marginal voter is one in two million multiplied by the probability of the presidential primary in a major state being decided by a single vote the product of this calculation is likely one in trillions.
Note: Fans of the Calvin and Hobbes newspaper comic will recognize Susie Derkins as a smart, ambitious young woman in that same comic strip who hopes to someday have an influence in law or politics.
Hopefully, Susie, this blog is part of your fifteen minutes of fame in the political realm. Photo credit: Thomas Hawk via Foter. GP Opinion Proportional vs.
0コメント