Running head: THE WINNER-TAKE-ALL PRINCIPLE

The Winner-Take-All Principle of the Electoral College

THE WINNER-TAKE-ALL PRINCIPLE

Abstract
It has been long debated that the winner-take-all-principle of the Electoral College should be abolished
for reasons that it fails to promote loyalty, equality and democracy. Some of the arguments against the
Electoral College are: it has the risk of so-called faithless electors and the possible role of the Electoral
College in depressing voter turnout. On the other hand, arguments in favor of this principle defend that it:
enhances the status of minority interests and maintains a federal system of government and
representation.
This Research paper will use the following sources: Keeping the Republic by Barbour and Wright,
Federalist No. 68 by Alexander Hamilton, the documents written by William Kimberling and Tara Ross
and the National Archives and Records Administration to address whether or not to abolish the winnertake-all principle. This paper also intends to: tell how the-winner-take-all-principle works in the Electoral
College, identify some of the arguments of for and against the winner-take-all-principle, and explain some
the proposals and steps that have been made to change the winner take all principle.
In conclusion, despite the proposals that have been made to change the winner-take-all-principle of the
Electoral College and the measures that have been done, it is still improbable to change the system.

THE WINNER-TAKE-ALL PRINCIPLE

The Winner-Take-All Principle of the Electoral College

Back when the federal government did not fully trust its citizens, the founding fathers established
in the Constitution the Electoral College as a compromise between the election of the president by a
popular vote and by a vote in Congress. Until now, citizens cannot vote directly for their president that
breaks democratic principles and obscures presidential politics. But, are these arguments enough to prove
that the winner-take-all principle of the Electoral College be abolished even if it has proved that it has
worked well in this century having no election of the president that has been decided in the House of
Representatives? The winner-take-all principle of the Electoral College is used in most states and in the
District of Columbia except in Maine and Nebraska. This principle means that in a state, the candidate
who has the majority or the plurality of the popular vote gets all the electoral votes of the state. This
principle, then, does not guarantee that whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, is sure to be elected as
the president for the Electoral College determines the winner of the election. For those who object the
winner-take-all principle, they worry that the Electoral College system has: the risk of so-called
faithless electors and the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turnout. On the other
hand, arguments in favor of this principle defend that it: enhances the status of minority interests and
maintains a federal system of government and representation. Nonetheless, amidst the presence of the
never-ending criticisms, it will be difficult to abolish this since the Electoral College is included in the
original Constitution made by the founding fathers and a Constitutional amendment is necessary to
change this system. Finally, if the winner-take-all principle of the Electoral College will be abolished, this
change would thwart one of the main pillars of our political system that is the division of the national and
federal governments that guarantees a firm and solid national government.

How Winner-Take-All (WTA) Works in the Electoral College

Unlike other countries, the voters of the United States of America do not vote for their president
and vice president during presidential elections. Instead, they vote for electors who will vote for the

THE WINNER-TAKE-ALL PRINCIPLE

president and the vice president in November. This process is called the Electoral College. According to
authors Christine Barbour and Gerald Wright (2015), because the founders of the Constitution feared that
the electoral might have too much power, they established the Electoral College (p. 414).
The Electoral College consists of 538 electorates, 270 of which are needed to win the presidency.
The Constitution provides for each state to have as many electoral votes as it does senators and
representatives in Congress (Barbour & Wright, 2015, p. 414). Also, under the Twenty-third Amendment
of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is given 3 electoral votes treated like a state. In December,
the electors will meet in their respective state capitals and cast their votes for the president and vice
president. The results then are sent to the Congress and the Senate counts the votes as the new session
opens. According to Barbour and Wright, if no candidate achieves a majority in the Electoral College,
the Constitution calls for the House of Representatives to choose from the top electoral vote winners. In
this process, each state has one vote. If the vote goes to the House, then the Senate decides on the vice
president, with each senator having one vote (Barbour & Wright, 2015, p. 414).
The Electoral College holds a principle known as the winner-take-all principle that is used in
most states and in the District of Columbia except in Maine and Nebraska. Barbour and Wright give an
example where, the winner in California, even if he or she has less than half of the popular vote, wins all
the states fifty-five electoral votes. Similarly, the loser in California may have won 49 percent of the
popular vote but gets nothing in the Electoral College (Barbour & Wright, 2015, p. 414). This principle
means that in a state, the candidate who has the majority or the plurality of the popular vote gets all the
electoral votes of the state. This principle, then, does not guarantee that whoever wins the nationwide
popular vote, is sure to be elected as the president since, the Electoral College determines the winner of
the election. The situation wherein the popular vote winner lost in the Electoral College has only
happened three times in the history of America (Barbour & Wright, 2015, p. 414).

THE WINNER-TAKE-ALL PRINCIPLE

Criticisms and Defenses of WTA

Some of the arguments that object the winner-take all principle worry that the Electoral College
system has: the risk of so-called faithless electors and the possible role of the Electoral College in
depressing voter turnout.
Although the electors are expected to vote according to the candidate carried by the state, there
are the so-called faithless electors who vote for their own preferences (Barbour & Wright, 2015, p.
414). These faithless electors may be subjected to fines and may also be disqualified and replaced
provided by some state laws (National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.).
Nowadays, the presence of faithless electors in the Electoral College rarely happens, because they
are known to be loyal to their party or they hold a leadership position in their party. Throughout our
history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged (NARA, n.d.).
Second, the opponents of the winner-take-all principle also argue that, since each State is
entitled to the same number of electoral votes regardless of its voter turnout, there is no incentive in the
States to encourage voter participation. Thus, this gives the smaller states a greater power than the larger
states. Barbour and Wright provide an example that states, Alaska, sent one elector to the Electoral
College for every 240,000 people, while California had one elector for every 679,000 people. With this,
aside from having a greater power, smaller states also get proportionately greater representation in the
Electoral College (Barbour & Wright, 2015, p. 414).
On the other hand, arguments in favor of this principle defend that it: enhances the status of
minority interests and maintains a federal system of government and representation.
Those who are for the winner-take-principle claim that, it enhances the status of minority
interest because this gives the minorities an opportunity to make a difference in the election. Since ethnic
minority groups in the United States happen to concentrate in those States with the most electoral votes,
they assume an importance to presidential candidates well out of proportion to their number
(Kimberling, 1992). Aside from giving the minority groups to make a difference in the election, the

THE WINNER-TAKE-ALL PRINCIPLE

Electoral College also gives the presidency as an institution, the shift to be more sensitive and concerned
when it comes to minority groups and special interest groups.
Second, the winner-take-all principle maintains a federal system of government and
representation that has been proved to work excellently, because in the first place, the Electoral College
was designed to represent each State's choice for the presidency, having each states number of electoral
votes the same as the number of its representatives and senators as the House of Representatives was
designed to represent the States according to was the size of the each states population and the Senate
was designed to represent each state equally. To abolish the Electoral College in favor of a nationwide
popular election for president would strike at the very heart of the federal structure laid out in our
Constitution and would lead to the nationalization of our central government -- to the detriment of the
States (Kimberling, 1992).

Alternatives to WTA and Steps Already Taken

Two of the proposals that have been made to change the winner-take-all principle are: the District
Plan, that would award electoral votes based upon congressional district, and the Proportional Plan, that
would divide states electoral votes proportionally according to the popular vote outcome within the
state (Ross, 2004).
First, according to Ross, the District Plan intends that, the candidate with the most votes in any
congressional district would win that district's one electoral vote (2004). This means then that, rather
having a total of 538 electoral votes; it would turn to a total of 435 since there are 435 Congressional
Districts in the United States of America. Rose also mentions that, the two Senate "add-on" votes in each
state would then be treated as "at-large" votes and awarded to the state's popular vote winner (2004).
Finally, Ross notes that, the only two states that do not use the winner-take-all principle, Maine and
Nebraska, already started operating this system (2004). The District Plan advocates the candidates to
campaign in states that they consider safe rather than focusing on states with the biggest payoff in
electoral votes. Thus, this plan would create greater voter participation than the winner-take-all principle
because each voter feels that his/her vote actually matters.

THE WINNER-TAKE-ALL PRINCIPLE

Second, according to Ross, under the Proportional Plan, the Electoral College would be retained,
but the electoral votes in each state would be allocated based upon the percentage of the popular vote won
(2004). So, rather than basing the number of the electoral votes in each state according to its number of
representatives and senators, the electoral votes would be based on the percentage of the popular vote
won. Although the proponents of this plan argue that it retains the Electoral College vigor, the results
would be closer to the national popular vote outcome (Ross, 2004). They also argue that, the voices of
minority voting groups would be reflected in the final election tally because even ballots cast for thirdparty candidates could be reflected in the national results (Ross, 2004). Thus, it is also likely to happen
that a presidential candidate can win the election without winning the popular, but Ross claims that, it will
happen less likely than the system that we have at present (2004).
Ross states that, Colorado is currently considering adoption of the Proportional Plan. She
discusses that, there is an organization of Colorado citizens financed by a group from San Francisco and
funded by a Brazilian millionaire who resides part-time in California, where they collected enough
signatures to place a referendum on its November 2004 ballot. If passed, this referendum would
supposedly replace Colorado's winner-take-all system of casting electoral votes with a system of
proportional allocation, making Colorado the only state to enact such a method in presidential elections
(2004).

Conclusion
Despite the criticisms where some are mentioned in this paper, the winner-take all principle
would be hard to abolish or even change it because, it was included in the original Constitution and it has
performed its functions for over 200 years. One of its functions is to safeguard that the president of the
United States has both the popular support to administrate, wherein this popular support gives the
president the likeliness of performing his/her job effectively. Proposals that have been made to abolish the
Electoral College have failed because they are more likely to create more problems than the Electoral
College alone. Lastly, if the winner-take-all principle of the Electoral College would be abolished, this
change would thwart one of the main pillars of our political system that is the division of the national and
federal governments that guarantees a firm and solid national government.

THE WINNER-TAKE-ALL PRINCIPLE

As Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers of the Constitution, writes in the Federalist
No. 68, the mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of
the system which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most
plausible of these has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded. I
venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least
excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for
(1788).

THE WINNER-TAKE-ALL PRINCIPLE

References
Barbour, C. and Wright G.. (2015). Keeping the republic: Power and Citizenship in
American Politics (6th edition brief). Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.
Hamilton, A. (1788). The Federalist papers. Retrieved from: https://www.congress.gov/
Kimberling, W. (1992). The Electoral College. Retrieved from: https://uselectionatlas.org
National Archives and Records Administration. (n.d.) U. S. Electoral College: Who are the
electors? How do they vote?. Retrieved from: https://www.archives.gov/
Ross, T. (2004). The Electoral College: Enlightened democracy. Retrieved from:
http://www.heritage.org/