Winner-take-all report"Winner-take-all" is a term used to describe single-member districts and broader electoral systems that award seats to the largest obtaining votes. without ensuring fair representation of minority groups. In the United States, these are usually single-member district systems or block voting systems. Under winner-take-all rules, a slim majority of voters can control 100% of the seats. , leaving everyone without representation. There is something else troubling about the way we elect presidents - something beyond personal attacks, abandoned voters and the influence of big money. It's the fact that so many of those who vote don't. their votes are not counted. Florida is a good example of what I'm talking about - not because that state turned out to be the difference maker in this week's election, but because more than 2 million voters - almost as many as would do. go to the winning candidate - had no say in the outcome. Florida's 25 electoral votes will go to the other. This is the inevitable consequence of the winner-take-all system that prevails in all states. Ultimately, of course, any competition for a single position is a winner-takes-all affair. But why should this be the case in the United States? Why should more than a million and a half California supporters of George W. Bush see the state's 54 electoral votes go to Al Gore? In short, what's wrong with divvying up each state's electoral votes based on how the state's electors voted? A better question, arguably, is: why not abandon the electoral college system altogether and move to direct elections? Politicians as diverse as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Richard Nixon supported a constitutional amendment to have all states adopt a proportional system. Clearly, the proposals came to nothing. This is probably because the political party that would be favored in a winner-take-all state is usually the one that runs the state. The party that has the power to change the system has no incentive to do so. It's not just the fact that votes are wasted that bothers me. There is much more to do. Bush barely campaigned in New York — and for the same reason Gore neglected Idaho, Wyoming and Alaska: His opponent locked down those states, along with 100 percent of their electoral votes. Indeed, Bush was criticized by some Republican strategists for wasting time and resources campaigning in California..