Filtering by
- Creators: Marine Biological Laboratory Archives
- Creators: College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
The Electoral College, the current electoral system in the U.S., operates on a Winner-Take-All or First Past the Post (FPTP) principle, where the candidate with the most votes wins. Despite the Electoral College being the current system, it is problematic. According to Lani Guinier in Tyranny of the Majority, “the winner-take-all principle invariably wastes some votes” (121). This means that the majority group gets all of the power in an election while the votes of the minority groups are completely wasted and hold little to no significance. Additionally, FPTP systems reinforce a two-party system in which neither candidate could satisfy the majority of the electorate’s needs and issues, yet forces them to choose between the two dominant parties. Moreover, voting for a third party candidate only hurts the voter since it takes votes away from the party they might otherwise support and gives the victory to the party they prefer the least, ensuring that the two party system is inescapable. Therefore, a winner-take-all system does not provide the electorate with fair or proportional representation and creates voter disenfranchisement: it offers them very few choices that appeal to their needs and forces them to choose a candidate they dislike. There are, however, alternative voting systems that remedy these issues, such as a Ranked voting system, in which voters can rank their candidate choices in the order they prefer them, or a Proportional voting system, in which a political party acquires a number of seats based on the proportion of votes they receive from the voter base. Given these alternatives, we will implement a software simulation of one of these systems to demonstrate how they work in contrast to FPTP systems, and therefore provide evidence of how these alternative systems could work in practice and in place of the current electoral system.
The Electoral College, the current electoral system in the U.S., operates on a Winner-Take-All or First Past the Post (FPTP) principle, where the candidate with the most votes wins. Despite the Electoral College being the current system, it is problematic. According to Lani Guinier in Tyranny of the Majority, “the winner-take-all principle invariably wastes some votes” (121). This means that the majority group gets all of the power in an election while the votes of the minority groups are completely wasted and hold little to no significance. Additionally, FPTP systems reinforce a two-party system in which neither candidate could satisfy the majority of the electorate’s needs and issues, yet forces them to choose between the two dominant parties. Moreover, voting for a third party candidate only hurts the voter since it takes votes away from the party they might otherwise support and gives the victory to the party they prefer the least, ensuring that the two party system is inescapable. Therefore, a winner-take-all system does not provide the electorate with fair or proportional representation and creates voter disenfranchisement: it offers them very few choices that appeal to their needs and forces them to choose a candidate they dislike. There are, however, alternative voting systems that remedy these issues, such as a Ranked voting system, in which voters can rank their candidate choices in the order they prefer them, or a Proportional voting system, in which a political party acquires a number of seats based on the proportion of votes they receive from the voter base. Given these alternatives, we will implement a software simulation of one of these systems to demonstrate how they work in contrast to FPTP systems, and therefore provide evidence of how these alternative systems could work in practice and in place of the current electoral system.
public health sphere.
Methods: Semi-structured interviews were collected from 55 adults from the South Phoenix community between November 2009 and September 2010. Interviews were digitally recorded with participant permission and transcribed. Of those collected, 48 transcribed interviews were analyzed using a codebook designed by the researcher. Percent agreement evaluated inter-rater reliability.Results: Latino immigrants in South Phoenix largely agree that health quality is heavily dependent on personal responsibility and not an intrinsic attribute of a given place. Emotional contentedness and distress, both factors of mental health, are impacted by cross-cultural differences between Latino and U.S. culture systems.
Conclusions: As people’s personal perceptions of differences in health are complex concepts influenced by personal backgrounds, culture, and beliefs, attempting to demark a side of the border as ‘healthier’ than the other using personal perceptions is overly simplified and misses central concepts. Instead, exploration of individual variables impacting health allowed this study to gain a more nuanced understanding in how people determine quality of both personal and environmental health. While Latino migrants in South Phoenix largely agree that health is based on personal responsibility and choices, many nonetheless experience higher levels of contentedness and emotional health in their country of origin.