|
Winner-Take-All* Politics
is White Supremacy
Politics
The United States
of America's "Winner-Take-All" political system is a contemporary
manifestation of the Redemption
era politics that represented the post civil war political
realization of the establishment of institutionalized White
Supremacy quota's in electoral politics effected by the
disproportionate political representation of southern whites in the
former Confederate States of America in presidential elections.
{ The Encyclopedia of Alabama, developed by the Alabama Humanities
Foundation and Auburn University, puts it that "low taxes (particularly
on property), weak government, and white supremacy - the core concerns
of the Bourbons - became of the law of the land." }
This table
demonstrates that the mainstream media bias of reporting the district
system as a more democratic representation of the popular choice is in
fact racially bias toward white supremacy. If the district system
had been employed in these four potential 2012 swing states
(FL,NC,OH,PA) in the 2008 election, the 52% to 48% advantage in the
popular vote in favor of Obama would have been reversed to 52% to 48%
advantage in the electoral vote in favor of McCain (The choice of the
majority of white voters). However a proportional allocation of
presidential electors predicated on the popular vote split matches the
popular vote. Mathematically the proportional apportionment of
presidential electors is the method that best aligns the electoral
college with the popular vote, and assures that political and racial
gerrymandering of congressional districts will not have a bias effect
on presidential elections and will act to eradicate minority vote
dilution by race and/or party. The Winner-Take-All system or the
adoption of District systems for the allocation of presidential
elections is a prescription for racial bias quotas in the
electoral college that favors white supremacy over the popular
vote, and that is why it is favored in media reports as an alternative
to Winner-Take-All.
|
neo-Confederate
Bias in the Electoral College
 |
BY THE NUMBERS: In
the 2008 presidential election the former 11 states of the Confederate
States of America with 153 electoral votes was allocated 57% of
the presidential electors (270) needed to elect the president of the
United States of America. In the 2008 election, 27% of the
general election white votes were cast in the former Confederate
States, whereas 46% of the general election black votes were cast
in those states. The new census will grant the 11 Confededrate states
with 159 electoral votes ~ 59% of the electors needed to elect the
president in 2012. |
This table
demonstrates that with proportional apportionment of electors for
these Southern States the popular vote for the Democratic Presidential
candidate in the 2008 Presidential
election would translate to 71 Presidential electors. Under the "winner
take all" rule only 55 electors were allocated to the democratic party
and 16 electors were transferred and awarded to the Republican party
candidate. The exclusive selection of the Southern slate of
presidential electors on a "winner take all" basis constitutes a net
minority party vote dilution with an abridgment in the citizens' "right
to vote" and a debasement in the weight of the citizens vote for the
democratic party in the former 11 Confederate states in violation
of Amend. 14§2. as implemented by 2U.S.C. § 6. This
malapportionment in electors presents a constitutional mandate for a
net reduction of 16 members to congress from these Southern
States.
|
neo-Confederate
Electoral "Redemption"
This table hi-lights
how the anti-democratic technology of Winner-take-all politics distorts
people representation to geographic-based representation in order to
preserve the electoral supremacy of White people. From the first
presidential election following the Civil War wherein the vote of a
sufficient minority of former slaves secured the election of the
republican candidate Ulysses S. Grant over the majority electoral
choice of White people for the democratic candidate running on the
party program "This is a White Man's Government"; to this day
"the suppression of the colored vote is necessary to prevent 'Negro
Domination,'—to prevent the ascendancy of the blacks over the whites in
the administration of the State and local governments" ( The Facts of Reconstruction by John
R. Lynch) continues as the Sine qua non of presidential
elections in the USA. In preparation for the 2012 election
,voter-suppression techniques are already underway in the former
confederate states of Florida, North Carolina and Virginia
to"redeem" these states for white electoral supremacy. The
Winner-take-all rule presents a strong and compelling
institutional incentive to suppress black voters, wherein a reversal of
the popular vote in Florida, North Carolina and Virginia
from 2008 will disproportionately favor the majority choice of the
minority of whites in the former confederate states(~27%) with
159 electoral votes ~ 59% of the electors needed to elect
the president in 2012. Under
proportional representation with similar ratios in the popular vote the
electoral gain for the majority white choice would only represent a
electoral gain from the 82 for McCain to 71 for Obama in 2008 to ~ 87
for Romney to ~72 for Obama in 2012 reflecting mostly the
electoral gain in the electoral college of the former confederate
states based on the 2010 census. Proportional apportionment of electors
would reflect the popular vote split of the southern population and
effectively negate "minority vote dilution" ,wherein the suppression of
over an average of ~200,000 voters would be needed to steal a single
southern state elector.
Proportional apportionment renders the gerrymandering of congressional
districts immaterial to the counting of presidential electors.
Proportional apportionment solves the malapportionment constitutional
problem presented by the Winner-take-all- rule. The choice of
Winner-take-all is not about democracy, it is not about the
national majority choice but the White majority choice, it is
institutionally, mathematically racist, and violates section two of the
Fourteenth amendment.
|
Why
Progressives Lose: Affirmative Action for Conservatives_by
Steven Hill
One
of the most obvious reasons for the recent successes of the Republican
Party and conservatives is being overlooked by most political analysts.
The unfortunate fact is, all three branches of the federal government
have a built-in STRUCTURAL bias favoring Republicans and the
conservative point of view. It's like having a foot race where
Republicans start 20 yards ahead of Democrats. Despite the unfairness
of it, that advantage is hardwired into the U.S. Constitution. ... more
|
Winner-Take-All
Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--And Turned Its Back on
the Middle Class _ Jacob S. Hacker› Paul Pierson
A
groundbreaking work that identifies the real culprit behind one of the
great economic crimes of our time--the growing inequality of incomes
between the vast majority of Americans and the richest of the rich. ...
Why do the "have it- alls" have so much more? And how have they managed
to restructure the economy to reap the lion's share of the gains and
shift the costs of their new economic playground downward, tearing new
holes in the safety net and saddling all of us with increased debt and
risk? Lots of so-called experts claim to have solved this great
mystery, but no one has really gotten to the bottom of it--until now.
... The guilty party is American politics. Runaway inequality and the
present economic crisis reflect what government has done to aid the
rich and what it has not done to safeguard the interests of the middle
class. The winner-take-all economy is
primarily a result of winner-take-all politics. ...more
|
|
*Winner-Take-All
Systems
“Winner-take-all” is a term used to describe
single member district and at large election systems that award seats
to the highest vote getters without ensuring fair representation for
minority groups. In the United States, these are typically
single-member district schemes or at-large, block-voting systems. Under
winner-take-all rules, a slim majority of voters can control 100% of
seats, leaving everyone else effectively without representation.
Winner-take-all systems are an anachronism in the modern world, as
nearly every emerging democracy has rejected their use. They were
introduced to America by the British during the colonial era, and are
virtually unknown in other developed countries. Their failings lie at
the root of many of our current political problems.
|
| At-large
voting denies voters an equally effective vote. At-large voting always
operates to "minimize or cancel out the voting strength of racial or
political elements of the voting population"[Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U.S. 433,
439 (1965)] . At-large voting clearly
operates to suppress the
representation of minority groups, whether racial, economic, political,
or otherwise. |
|
