Democracy in America lost when the winner-take-all system became a fun­da­mental part of the elec­toral process. With only two states — Maine and Nebraska — pro­por­tionally rep­re­sented, our nation has been taken over by the duopoly we know as the two-party system.

In the winner-take-all system, elec­toral college del­e­gates cast all their votes for whichever can­didate receives the plu­rality of the popular vote. The losing can­di­dates win nothing, even if they earn a sub­stantial number of votes. As a result, states are strongly influ­enced by heavily pop­u­lated areas, espe­cially during pres­i­dential elec­tions.

Rural and under­pop­u­lated areas are not fairly rep­re­sented in states that adhere to this limited system. In a nation that boasts of its rep­re­sen­tative democracy, this system makes the U.S. hyp­o­critical. Although Michigan has leaned red in nearly all of its state elec­tions since 2010, it has his­tor­i­cally gone blue in pres­i­dential elec­tions because of Detroit’s sway. This is a direct result of winner-take-all.

Cit­izens who cast their votes in rural areas become political spec­tators in the nose­bleed section — watching as one city deter­mines the color of the entire state. Since many major cities are dom­i­nated by a single political view­point, this system ensures that one party will have a political monopoly, pre­de­ter­mining the winner before the election even takes place. According to Fair Vote, a non­par­tisan orga­ni­zation trying to reform the system, two in five state leg­islative races go uncon­tested as a result, and nearly 99 percent of con­gres­sional incum­bents win reelection by large margins. How is this demo­c­ratic? In a system where every vote should count, ethnic and political minorities as well as third parties are being severely under­rep­re­sented.

The worst part is that states choose to abide by the rules of this system. The Con­sti­tution gives states the freedom to establish their own elec­toral systems, and the majority of states have opted for the winner-take-all system since the election of 1842, when they first began using it to choose their pres­i­dential electors. Maine and Nebraska are the only states which are pro­por­tionally rep­re­sented, meaning each can­didate receives a portion of the elec­toral votes based off the pro­por­tion­ality of the popular election. This system creates fair rep­re­sen­tation, and gives voters more options.

Voices outside the two-party system, nor­mally stifled by their inability to draw an over­whelming majority of the popular vote, can actually be heard. Pro­por­tional rep­re­sen­tation does not mean the elim­i­nation of majority rule. It still allows for can­di­dates who win the majority of the popular votes to receive the greatest number of elec­toral votes. It is merely based on the belief that elec­tions should be a mirror of the cit­izens’ political opinions, which the winner-take-all system has elim­i­nated.

The winner-take-all system encourages and even sus­tains the political gridlock the two-party system creates. As a result, over 45 percent of the cit­i­zenry is not rep­re­sented, according to Fair Vote.

This is not the rep­re­sen­tative democracy the Founders envi­sioned. In Fed­er­alist Paper No. 10, James Madison argues that extending the sphere, both ter­ri­to­rially and ide­o­log­i­cally, is the only way to prevent the tyran­nical reign of fac­tions. This means that our elec­toral system should be encour­aging the growth of new opinions and ideas, rather than sti­fling them.

Instead of allowing mul­tiple parties to play a role in our so-called democracy, we have allowed two parties to call the shots through the winner-take-all system. So for those who voted and anx­iously waited for the results of the election to be revealed: don’t worry. Your vote probably didn’t matter anyway.