Winner take all

One of the most important debates in American politics today concerns the adaption of the constitution to make sense of modern issues. Because the constitution was composed in such a different social atmosphere, it has become necessary to interpret its meaning in new and appropriate ways. Let us not forget that the original constitution equated slaves as 3/5ths of a person... It is apparent that we must adjust the purposes behind the constitution to meet our modern needs and standards. Although there is much debate over how this is to be done, there is little disagreement when it comes to the Electoral College. By far, the majority of citizens who are aware of its true implications agree that it is outdated and unnecessary.

The Electoral College was originally designed to avoid tension between the northern and southern states concerning the rights of African Americans. In the words of James Madison:

"There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."

Today, the Electoral College serves as an unnecessary step in the election process. Most states have adopted a "winner take all" approach to the electorate system. This process is largely undemocratic, because it completely disregards the votes of hundreds of thousands of individuals simply because they were the local minority. However, those votes add up, and therefore many elections may have had very different outcomes. This winner take all approach has been extremely negative in our election process, and has had lasting negative effects. These include:

*In 2000, George W Bush became president although opponent Al Gore received more of the popular vote. Bush won because he was the majority in a few large states with many electoral votes, rather that Gore, who had more individual votes.

*The winner take all approach gives candidates incentive to focus solely on states where there is rarely a clear majority. Minority voters in "decided states" have little incentive to come out and vote, because their vote will almost always be transferred to the opposing candidate. This is extremely undemocratic and disadvantages many thousands of voters, while privileging a select few (those in swing states).

*This system disadvantages third party voters as well, as their votes will almost always never count. This distorts the whole purpose of third parties because third party votes usually end up benefitting the candidate that they least favor (spoiler effect). If electoral votes were actually given to the candidate they were intended for, many voters would be empowered, and third parties would stand a much greater chance.


It is obvious that many Americans are unhappy with our political system. The "winner take all" approach to politics has accomplished little but to perpetuate a 2 party system and disadvantage thousands of voters. The founding fathers warned of this problem, especially James Madison, who argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. The current system has twisted the original intent of the democratic electoral process.

Many Americans today are discussing potential solutions to our current political disappointments (disappointments being an understatement). In my opinion, doing away with the "winner take all" approach should be seriously considered.