31
Off-Topic / Re: About Last Night...
« on: 12-11-2016, 15:11:43 »
IMO the "winner takes all" rule is much more retarded than overweighing the votes from less populated states. But I wouldn't be so sure what way the results would change even if the "winner takes all" rule would be dropped. Now it's pointless to vote the other party if one has overwhelming majority anyway so these voters stay home. Eg. in California the amount of Republican voters could actually increase if their votes actually mattered.
And us Europeans shouldn't be too proud as long as we have the ridiculousness of our own in the election practices. For example in parliamentary elections many countries have the silly principle of "long lists", the Inner Party decides the preferred order of candidates and the proles and Outer Party get to only vote the list instead of individuals. Even more countries have the d'Hondt method, where you can vote for an individual but he or she gets the votes in proportion to the support of his/her party, so one candidate with 10 votes may get elected just by being in the right party whereas a candidate with 10 000 votes is not.
And us Europeans shouldn't be too proud as long as we have the ridiculousness of our own in the election practices. For example in parliamentary elections many countries have the silly principle of "long lists", the Inner Party decides the preferred order of candidates and the proles and Outer Party get to only vote the list instead of individuals. Even more countries have the d'Hondt method, where you can vote for an individual but he or she gets the votes in proportion to the support of his/her party, so one candidate with 10 votes may get elected just by being in the right party whereas a candidate with 10 000 votes is not.