Winner-Take-All Elections Are Undemocratic

[jwoodie]

if the "winner" receives less than 50% of the vote. In such cases, there should be an "instant runoff" procedure or else the delegate/electors should be apportioned (with some minimum vote requirement). What say you?

 

[jon_berzerk]

it is like only a first place winner

 

[TheOldSchool]

I think anyone who receives less than 60% of the vote should be subject to a runoff

 

[Care4all]

I agree.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you talking about the primaries?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Maybe 80%.

 

[Blackrook]

I don't care about that, what I care about is open primaries where you don't need to be a Republican to decide who the Republican candidate is.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I don't care about that, what I care about is open primaries where you don't need to be a Republican to decide who the Republican candidate is.

How do you stop a Democrat from registering as republican?

 

[jwoodie]

I don't care about that, what I care about is open primaries where you don't need to be a Republican to decide who the Republican candidate is.

So why comment on this thread?

 

[jwoodie]

Are you talking about the primaries?

Primaries and general elections:

if the "winner" receives less than 50% of the vote. In such cases, there should be an "instant runoff" procedure or else the delegate/electors should be apportioned (with some minimum vote requirement).

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you talking about the primaries?

Primaries and general elections.

Primaries are run by the parties, not by the government. So take it up with them, they're private organizations.

As for the general, plurality victories (where the winner gets less than 50%) have only happened 5 times in the last 100 years.

 

[jwoodie]

As for the general, plurality victories (where the winner gets less than 50%) have only happened 5 times in the last 100 years.

In the 1992 Presidential election, nearly every State's electors were won by plurality.