Why is Florida an all or nothing state?

Each state gets to decide how it will split its vote. Florida has opted to give them all to the winner.

Because all the states adopted the winner-take-all system back in the 19th century. Currently, only Maine and Nebraska have changed from the winner-take-all to a split system.

@Aethelflaed that is true in the general election, but the primary system is usually a proportioned vote, or it has been in the past.

@WestRiverrat Thanks for clarifying b/c when @Aethelflaed said that I was like “uhhh, wait a second.”

Has anyone or any one group stated what the benefit is of ignoring the voice of the minority (those who voted for every other candidate) for the the majority (those who voted for the frontrunner who would take all votes) when there is an option to meet the demands of all (as in divvying up the votes proportionally)?

I just don’t see the logic, nor do I see the appeal to the approach.

Florida is currently in violation of the rules of the Republican National Committee. They are going much earlier than they are allowed to go.

The state wishes to hold the primary today, and to be winner take all. Winner takes all gives you more electoral punch. The RNC has said, they cannot go today, and any earlier state cannot be winner take all.

No matter what the news media says, only Florida believes that it is a winner take all state, that will not be decided until the convention. They are just repeating it so as to build momentum to be allowed to be winner take all.

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought HMMM. If that’s true, that’s very interesting. COMPLETELY opposite of what the media would have you believe…

Remember, the only reason they counted at all on the democratic side last round is Obama was so far ahead he said Hillary could have them, so as to seem magnanimous. The Democrats won’t even acknowledge their primary.

I think the primary thinking (sorry, I didn’t mean to make a pun there) is that a winner-take-all primary vote helps to set up someone as a front-runner sooner than proportional votes would. That tends to narrow the field more quickly and get to a single nominee before the convention begins. It’s akin to the thinking that has us represented almost exclusively by two parties, rather than the multiple parties that are common in most parliamentary governments.

@CWOTUS I think you hit the nail on the head. That’s the direction I was headed toward.

@mrrich724 Sorry, totally didn’t see the part about the primaries. That’s my bad.