Why is the electoral college a winner-take-all system?

Answer 1

The presidential candidate with the most votes wins all the electoral votes of the state (in 48 states). The result is that winning a few large population states (swing states), even by a tiny margin, can guarantee election to the presidency.

*Maine and Nebraska give one vote to the winner of each of their congressional districts, and the remaining 2 to the overall winner of the state, making them the only non-winner take all states.

Answer 2

Because if you get the majority of the votes in a state, you usually get all of the electoral votes for that state. Therefore, you can win the electoral vote (and the election), but still lose the popular vote.

Winning a few large population states, even by a tiny margin, can guarantee election to the presidency.

*Maine and Nebraska give one vote to the winner of each of their congressional districts, and the remaining 2 to the overall winner of the state, making them the only non-winner take all states.

Answer 3

The electoral college is virtually a winner-take-all system, but only by the choice of the states and not due to the US Constitution. At present all of the states except two allot all of their electoral votes to the state-wide winner in popular votes. This a candidate who carries a state by just one vote still gets all of that state's electoral votes.

The US Constitution does not require this "all or nothing" rule . Two states, Maine and Nebraska allow their votes to be split. What they do is to give one vote to the winner in each congressional district and two votes to the state-wide winner. The number of electoral votes a state has is always two plus the number of its Congressional districts, so this method could be used in any state. Within each congressional district it is still winner take all, so it is not really a proportional system. A candidate could carry each district by just one vote and win all the state's vote but just barely get more than half of the popular vote.