And certainly a candidate who wins likely will share many of the same ideas and values as the largest voting block in his or her constituency. One clear downside to winner-take-all voting, however, is that losing candidates win nothing, even if they win substantial numbers of votes.
In a two-candidate race, it is possible for In a three-candidate race, that number can climb to Examples of such "plurality" victories are common. The leap of faith made by advocates of winner-take-all systems is that supporters of losing candidates will be duly represented by either the candidate who wins, even if that candidate is their ideological opposite, or by candidates elected elsewhere. They also must believe that voters opinions can be neatly boiled into two basic options, as typically happens in competitive winner-take-all elections in the United States.
Women, communities of color, third parties, young people, and those in gerrymandered districts are all underrepresented.
Winner-take-all election systems do nothing to provide representation to any group making up less than half of the population in a given voting district, and the high percentage of the vote needed to win election can be a severe barrier to minority candidates. Since many areas are dominated by a single political viewpoint, winner-take-all voting systems will often result in elections with predetermined winners because one party has a monopoly on power.
Wasted votes are votes cast for candidates who do not win. More voters will be represented by someone who they did not help to elect than under any other system.
In this way, winner-take-all discourages voters from expressing their full range of political preferences. She declined.
She felt strongly that this winner-take-all dynamic needs to be fought, not embraced. She argued, in essence, that I should have devoted my labors to tearing down a system in which a handful of giant companies and the highly compensated people who work at them dominate the world economy, rather than teaching people how to game it.
Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts. Word Lists. Miller ,. Release Dates. Elite networking forums like the Aspen Institute and the Clinton Global Initiative groom the rich to be self-appointed leaders of social change, taking on the problems people like them have been instrumental in creating or sustaining. Need a translator?
Leading Democratic candidates for president have made attacking big business, and the power it wields, central to their campaigns. Republicans are on board, at least as it pertains to the power of the big tech platforms such as Facebook and Google.
Winner take(s) (it) all may refer to: Contents. 1 Competition, economics and politics; 2 Books. Fiction; Nonfiction. 3 Film; 4 Television; 5 Music; 6 See also. About Winners Take All. The New York Times bestselling, groundbreaking investigation of how the global elite's efforts to “change the world” preserve the status.
And among economists, the evidence keeps building that the concentration of major industries among a handful of superstar firms might be connected to deep economic dysfunctions. Big dominant companies might focus more on defending what they have than on generating the kinds of innovations that drive economy-wide productivity growth. And the rise of superstar firms is likely related to the rise of superstar cities and the hollowing out of many local economies. Read: One reason workers are struggling even when companies are doing well. But in all the piling on, I fear something really important is missing from the conversation.
The rise of superstar firms is rooted in fundamental technological and economic shifts that are mostly desirable.
They would instead leave us with a slightly larger variety of very big, technologically advanced companies dominating the corporate landscape. Similarly, the crucial question facing ordinary Americans, no matter how the debates over corporate power play out in the years ahead, is how to harness this reality to have fulfilling careers. If we want to be successful in the corporate world of the 21st century, we need to make sure we know how to work in the types of large, information-driven organizations that, one way or another, are going to remain central to the American economy.
Americans tend to take the advantages big companies confer for granted because they are so embedded in our daily lives. More and more industries are built off intellectual, rather than physical, capital—in ways that make the goods and services we purchase better in all kinds of ways. A software company might spend millions of dollars to develop code that can then be endlessly replicated; a moviemaker can invest a fortune to make an action movie that can then be viewed by countless people for minimal additional cost.
That pattern also applies in areas that might not seem like information industries. When you choose a bank based on whether it has a good mobile app and a wide network of automatic-teller machines, banking becomes more of a winner-take-all information industry. When General Electric employs thousands of engineers to create the technology for a jet engine that saves fuel and almost never fails, it is very much part of a winner-take-all information industry.
The technology that makes those things possible demands immense investment, massive forces of specialized labor, and complex management structures to make it all work. And those markets tend to favor fewer, more dominant players. They all exhibit positive returns to scale, in which greater size makes a business more efficient rather than less.
In each of these examples, the sheer scale of the biggest banks, retailers, and jet-engine manufacturers makes their products inherently more desirable than those of most upstart competitors. Or consider the hotel business. It is a prime example of a once-fragmented industry that has become dominated by superstar firms.