4
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds    H4'ed 3/24/19

# A Tale of Two Parties and the end of "Winner Takes all"

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)

Become a Fan
(1 fan)

Themes: A Tale of Two Parties
(Image by Gary Flomenhoft)
Details   DMCA

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way--in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only." --Charles Dickens 1859

Let's explore a tale of two parties. Why are they so foolish and use the "winner-takes-all" system in each state in Presidential elections? Is it that they can't do fractions? In my previous article about the Electoral College we established that Americans can in fact do fractions. To prove it here are the results from the 2016 US Republican and Democratic Party presidential primary elections:

2016 Republican Primaries

2016 Republican Presidential Primary Election
(Image by Ali Zifan)
Details   DMCA

Republicans allocate 2472 delegates to their convention in 56 primary contests by proportion of popular vote in each state. Note that seven different candidates in total received delegates. In Nevada, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Maryland five different candidates received delegates. The Republicans can be very democratic and even do fractions. Here's the result from Virginia for example. Look at the wisdom of the proportions. Each candidate is allocated delegates exactly according to the popular vote. Fractions are rounded up or down according to normal rules of math. I'm incredulous. Who said Republicans can't do science and math?

2016 Virginia Presidential Primary-Republican
(Image by wikipedia)
Details   DMCA

2016 Democratic Party Primaries:

Democrats can also do fractions, but ironically are not quite so democratic as the Republicans, because they have "super" delegates that do what the party bosses tell them to do. To illustrate, here's the map of 2016 "pledged" (elected) delegates followed by the map of total delegates (including superdelegates):

2016 Democratic Primaries-Pledged (elected) Delegates

2016 Democratic Presidential Primary Election-Pledged
(Image by Ali Zifan)
Details   DMCA

2016 Democratic Primaries-Total Delegates (Includes Superdelegates)

2016 Democratic Presidential Primary Election-Total
(Image by Ali Zifan)
Details   DMCA

Look carefully at Wyoming, Michigan, Indiana, and Rhode Island. The color magically turned from green (Sanders) to yellow (Clinton). This is just one of the ways that Clinton stole the nomination from Bernie (see Donna Brazile's book and Wikileaks for the rest). 'Twas a season of darkness. Take Michigan for example:

2016 Michigan Presidential Primary-Democrat
(Image by wikipedia)
Details   DMCA

Voters gave Bernie 67 delegates and Hillary 63. Delegates are allocated according to proportion of the vote, although there's something fishy because 49.7% of 130 is 64.6 so that would be 65 delegates for Sanders, not 67. Ok, well Democrats can sort of do fractions. Bernie still wins Michigan. It was the spring of hope, but then the winter of despair set in. After "unpledged" superdelegates are allocated (10 to Hillary, 0 to Bernie) Clinton gets 73 and Sanders still has 67. Hillary steals Michigan, thwarting the will of the people. As the DNC would say, she stole it fair and square. "We don't have to follow the will of the people and can choose the candidate in a cigar-filled back room if we want to." They actually said something like this in the court case challenging the result! Now do the math: Allocating 147 total delegates by proportion of the vote, Sanders would have gotten 73 and Hillary 71. Three would have been uncommitted. Not so democratic these Dems.

Now let's look at the 2016 general election. 304 electoral votes to Trump, 227 to Clinton:

2016 Electoral College Map
(Image by By Gage)
Details   DMCA

2016 Presidential Election by Vote Distribution Among States
(Image by Ali Zifan)
Details   DMCA

I already calculated the results if electoral votes were allocated by proportion of the vote:
Trump: 247, H. Clinton: 252.5, others: 38.5 = 538 total
Trump: 45.9%, H. Clinton: 46.94%, others 7.16%
Clinton wins, Popular vote and Electoral college match.

But look at Gary Johnson's little yellow slices of the pies, like daggers pointed at the heart of the two-party monopoly. That will give you a hint about this sordid story.

Take California for an example. Hillary got 61.7% of the vote and got all 55 electoral votes. But why? More foolishness.

US Presidential Election in California 2016
(Image by wikipedia)
Details   DMCA

When we see the results of California we can now understand why Republicans and Democrats suddenly lose the ability to do fractions in general elections. They insist on winner-takes-all, or as they say in Britain with their snobby horse-racing analogy: "First-past-the-post". Hillary would have gotten 34 and Trump 17 by proportion of the vote. You can see from the yellow slices in the pie charts above that Libertarian Gary Johnson got substantial votes in many states. In California, Gary Johnson deserved two electoral votes and Jill Stein deserved one if allocated by proportion of the vote. All the other candidates combined also earned one.

Democrats and Republicans have done everything they can to prevent other parties from competing in elections including blocking ballot-access, denying media coverage, arresting third-party candidates (Ralph Nader, Jill Stein), hijacking the debates from the League of Women Voters, smearing them, and a variety of other dirty tricks. Libertarians and Greens still managed to get enough votes to earn electoral votes in California and some other states if electoral votes were allocated the same way as delegates in primary elections.

Gary Flomenhoft Social Media Pages:

Gary Flomenhoft is a Vermont decentralist and secessionist who denies the legitimacy of the US government, which consistently commits all four Nuremburg war crimes: crimes against peace (aggressive war), conspiracy to commit crimes against (more...)

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Name
Email
(Opens new browser window)

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Gary Flomenhoft

(Member since Sep 22, 2012), 1 fan, 6 articles, 23 comments