Studied by 0 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
should be abolished as it produces a weak mandate
In 2024 almost 50% of the votes opposed trump but he still had a sweeping mandate
2024 United states election in Michigan, Trump got 49.73% of the vote, Harris received 48.31% and Trump still recieved 15 of the ECV and Harris received none. This is because of the ‘winner takes all’ system so while Trump only narrowly won he still got all the votes
In 2016, Trump won just under 63 million votes whilst Clinton won 66 million but because trump’s were more dispersed he won 30 state contests and won a majority of 304 electoral votes
actually produces strong mandate
t2016 rum[‘s voters were efficiently distributed enough to win 30 state conests and a majority of the electorlal votes, shows his legitimacy and strong mandate on a national basis rather than concentrated support
tactical voting
Tactical voting- third party voters in swing states are faced with disproportionate pressure to voter strategically rather than for their preferred candidate.
The use of winner takes all, means that while the entire country participates in the election, it is really only the votes in the battleground states that have any significant influence.
Voters in solidly ‘red’ or ‘blue’ states may reasonably come to feel that their vote is meaningless
262 events held in 2024, 246 (94%) took place in 7 battleground states- collectively represent less than 20% of US population
This leaves 80% of voters as mere spectators in election process,
v
Small state overrepresentation-Wyoming has an electoral vote for every 194,
667 citizens while California has one for every 721,667 citizens- apparently gives smaller states a voice compared to the larger states
If vote were proportional to population Californoia would overwhelmingly tilt the balance towards the Democratic party
