This paper examines the United States' winner-takes-all (plurality) electoral system and compares it with proportional representation (PR) and mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) systems used in other democracies. It outlines how the Electoral College operates, identifies the key criticisms of plurality voting — including the marginalization of third parties, wasted votes, and the possibility of a popular-vote winner losing the presidency — and explains how PR and MMP address these shortcomings. The paper concludes that PR and MMP tend to produce more democratic outcomes by broadening political representation, encouraging voter turnout, and reducing disenfranchisement, while acknowledging that no single system is universally optimal.
The winner-takes-all, or first-past-the-post system used in the United States is also known as a plurality voting system. It is a simple and straightforward system in which the candidate who receives the most votes in a district wins that district's election. The same principle applies at the state level, where the candidate who wins the most districts across the state wins the state's electoral votes. This paper discusses the electoral system in the United States and compares it to alternative systems in order to evaluate which is most democratic.
In the United States, each state is allocated a number of electoral votes based on its population. The total number of electoral votes is 538, and the candidate who wins at least 270 electoral votes becomes the president. In most states, the winner of the popular vote also wins all of the state's electoral votes, which is why this system is referred to as a winner-takes-all system.
However, a few states use a proportional allocation of electoral votes, where the winning candidate receives only a portion of the state's electoral votes based on their share of the popular vote. These states include Maine and Nebraska.
One criticism of the winner-takes-all system is that it tends to favor the two major political parties, as third-party and independent candidates often struggle to win elections (Gillespie, 2012). Additionally, in close elections, the candidate who wins the most electoral votes may not necessarily win the popular vote, which has led to controversy and debate over the legitimacy of the system.
Despite its flaws, the winner-takes-all system has been used in the United States since the country's founding, and it has been effective in providing a relatively stable and predictable method of electing presidents.
Proportional representation (PR) is a system in which political parties receive a share of seats in the legislature proportional to the number of votes they receive. The number of votes a party receives directly determines the number of seats it holds in the legislature. This system is used in many European countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands.
Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) is a hybrid system that combines aspects of both the winner-takes-all system and PR (Ferrara et al., 2005). In this system, voters cast two votes: one for a candidate in their district and one for a political party. The candidate who wins the most votes in the district wins that district's seat, while the party vote determines the overall allocation of seats in the legislature.
Compared to the winner-takes-all system, both PR and MMP tend to produce more representative legislatures, with a wider range of political parties and viewpoints represented. These systems also tend to encourage higher voter turnout and reduce the likelihood of "wasted votes" — situations in which a voter's preferred candidate has no realistic chance of winning.
In contrast, the American electoral system tends to favor the two major political parties and often excludes smaller parties and independent candidates. It also tends to produce winner-takes-all outcomes, which can create situations where a candidate who wins the popular vote does not win the election.
Furthermore, the American electoral system does not require candidates to win an absolute majority of votes, which can allow a candidate who is not preferred by the majority of voters to still win the election. This can create division in society, where one portion of the population may feel that its interests are entirely unrepresented at the federal level while the other enjoys full representation.
"Evaluating representation, turnout, and wasted votes"
The United States' winner-takes-all system of voting has its advantages, but also has significant drawbacks. While it is simple and easy to understand, it can lead to under-representation of certain groups, wasted votes, and limited choice for voters. Proportional representation and mixed-member proportional representation have been proposed as alternative systems that can potentially lead to more democratic outcomes by providing fairer representation, reducing the likelihood of wasted votes, and encouraging a broader range of political parties to participate in elections. Ultimately, the most democratic system will depend on a country's unique circumstances and values. Nevertheless, it is clear that the United States should consider alternative voting systems to ensure fair representation and meaningful engagement with its electorate.
You’re 71% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.