You’ve probably heard the term "winner-take-all" tossed around every four years like a political football. It’s the reason why a candidate can win 50.1% of the vote in a state and walk away with every single one of its electoral votes, while the other person gets zero. Zip. Zilch.
But honestly? That’s not the whole story.
If you’re asking if are electoral votes all or nothing, the short answer is "mostly, but not always." While 48 states and Washington, D.C. use a winner-take-all system, there are two rebellious outliers that do things a bit differently.
The Winners and the Also-Rans: How the System Usually Works
For the vast majority of Americans, the "all or nothing" rule is the only reality they know. When you go to the polls in a place like Florida or California, you aren't actually voting for a president. Kinda weird, right? You’re actually voting for a "slate" of electors—real people chosen by the political parties—who have promised to vote for their candidate.
In a winner-take-all state, the candidate who gets the most popular votes—even if it's just by a single ballot—gets the entire slate. This is why you see candidates spending $100 million in Pennsylvania and exactly $0 in Mississippi.
The system basically makes "safe" states invisible. If you’re a Republican in New York or a Democrat in Idaho, your vote doesn't "count" toward the final Electoral College tally in the same way it would in a swing state. The winner-take-all math just gobbles it up.
🔗 Read more: January 6th Explained: Why This Date Still Defines American Politics
The Two States That Ditch the All-or-Nothing Rule
Maine and Nebraska are the odd ones out. They use something called the Congressional District Method.
Instead of dumping all their electoral votes into one basket, they split them up. Here’s how it breaks down in these states:
- Two electoral votes go to the winner of the statewide popular vote.
- The remaining votes (two in Maine, three in Nebraska) are awarded to the winner of each individual congressional district.
This isn't just a theoretical quirk. It actually matters. In 2020, for example, Joe Biden won the statewide vote in Nebraska’s 2nd District (around Omaha), even though Donald Trump won the rest of the state. Biden walked away with one electoral vote from a state he technically "lost."
Maine does the same thing. In 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump managed to snag one of Maine’s electoral votes by winning the more rural 2nd Congressional District, while the rest of the state went blue.
Why Don't All States Just Split Their Votes?
You’d think a proportional system would be fairer, right? If you get 40% of the vote, you should get 40% of the electors.
💡 You might also like: Is there a bank holiday today? Why your local branch might be closed on January 12
Well, the major political parties aren't exactly rushing to change things. If California (a deep blue state) switched to a split system, Republicans would suddenly start winning 20+ electoral votes there every election. Democrats would hate that. Conversely, if Texas (a red stronghold) split its votes, Democrats would start picking up a massive chunk of electoral votes from cities like Austin and Houston.
Basically, neither side wants to unilaterally disarm.
There's also the "swing state" factor. States like Ohio and Florida have massive influence because they are winner-take-all prizes. If they split their votes proportionally, they’d become less "valuable" to candidates. No candidate is going to spend weeks in a state if the best they can do is "maybe win one more vote than the other guy."
The Faithless Elector Wildcard
Even in "all or nothing" states, there's a tiny, chaotic loophole: the faithless elector.
Technically, electors are people, not robots. While 38 states have laws requiring electors to vote for the candidate they pledged to support, others don't have much of a "teeth" in their regulations. In 2016, we saw a record number of seven faithless electors who decided to vote for someone other than the person who won their state.
📖 Related: Is Pope Leo Homophobic? What Most People Get Wrong
It didn't change the outcome, but it proved that the "all or nothing" rule is only as strong as the people casting the actual ballots in December.
Is the Winner-Take-All System Fair?
This is the big debate. Critics say it's an outdated relic that silences millions of voters. They point to 2000 and 2016, where the person who won the most individual votes nationwide actually lost the election because of how the "all or nothing" math worked out in specific states.
On the flip side, supporters argue that it forces candidates to care about more than just big cities. Without it, they say, a candidate could just camp out in NYC, LA, and Chicago and ignore the rest of the country. They argue the system protects the interests of smaller states by making them "blocks" that candidates have to court.
What You Can Actually Do About It
If you think the system is broken, there’s a real movement trying to bypass it without actually changing the Constitution. It’s called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).
States that join this compact agree to award all their electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote, regardless of who won in their specific state.
But there's a catch: the compact only goes into effect once enough states join to reach 270 electoral votes. As of 2026, they aren't quite there yet, but they’re getting closer.
Actionable Insights:
- Check your state's laws: If you live in Maine or Nebraska, your vote for a representative also directly impacts a specific electoral vote. If you live elsewhere, you are voting for a winner-take-all block.
- Follow the NPVIC: If you want to see the "all or nothing" system end at the state level, keep an eye on your state legislature's stance on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
- Volunteer in swing districts: If you’re in a split-vote state like Nebraska, your local district race has national presidential implications. That "blue dot" or "red dot" can actually decide the White House.
The Electoral College is a weird, clunky machine. Most of the time it's all-or-nothing, but those few exceptions in Maine and Nebraska prove that the rules aren't set in stone—they're just a choice made by state politicians.