For example, say US have $1 trillion and the federal government wants to distribute it among states.

Say some states uses the usual system of winner takes all and another state uses the system of proportional representation.

As usual, in all states, there are people that want welfare and those who want lower taxes. How will the $1 trillion be distributed? Will states that don't use winner takes all get less than $1 trillion?

Say a state have 50 electoral colleges. Winner takes all means those who win 51% votes in that state get all the state electoral colleges. Proportional means those who win 51% votes get say, 26 of the electoral colleges.

Basically, intuitively, we think that the states choose the winner takes all system to empower their own voters.

This question talk about it here Which US states give proportional Presidential electoral college votes to candidates?

However, it doesn't do so quantitatively. So your state get ignored. So what? People don't vote so politicians campaign in their state. People vote so their interests are influential in that state.

Also, now all non battle ground states are ignored. Non battle ground states will worth more if they use proportional representation.

A presidential candidate won't campaign in california, for example, knowing for sure he'll lose there. In proportional system, he would campaign there because California is a big state.

All these are confusing and I think will at least need quantitative treatment. Any quantitative analysis?

  • Note that "electoral college" refers to the group of people who do the voting. Members of this group are called "electors". – Steve Melnikoff Jun 25 at 8:19
  • The question is as is. I want quantitative analysis why winner takes all is better and serve the voters' interest in a state. Winner takes all don't look like it helps non swing state at all? – user4951 Jun 26 at 3:36

Browse other questions tagged .