Not all terms for describing electoral systems originated in political science. Some were developed (or at least popularized) by professional reformers seeking to build popular movements because legislative adoption was too hard. One of those terms is “winner-take-all.” Here is what F.A. Hermens says about it in written comments at the 1985 World Congress of the International Political Science Association.
Professor Longley makes some very perceptive remarks about factors which affected the demand for electoral change and the people who shaped it […] After an interval the energetic Enid Lakeman took over and intensified the work [of Humphreys]. She presided over a significant terminological change: The P. R. Society became The Electoral Reform Society, and the cause of reform was identified with that of P. R. Similar terminological changes were stressed: Calling plurality voting the “first past the post” system became more widespread, as did “winner take all” for majority voting. Thus the notion was conveyed that the former was as simplistic as the children’s game and the latter a grab for all there was. It is sad as well as significant that this terminology became frequent in academic writings; even the cautionary quotation marks are now all but gone.
By “majority voting,” Hermens seems to mean the two-round systems that tended to predate PR adoption on the European continent. “Majority voting” was a lifelong theme in his work.
However, in our own time, “winner take all” gets used to describe plurality allocation but not Alternative Vote (instant runoff). This inverts what Hermens observed 39 years ago about majority allocation. However, sometimes “winner take all” does get used to describe any system without multi-mark ballots. [Shrug emoj.]
(The term multi-mark comes from a 2019 book by political scientist J.S. Maloy. It is useful for alluding to the current range of proposed ballot types.)
Early exchanges like the above are fascinating because they were taking place alongside formation of APSA’s organized sections. They were shaping the scientific discourse of the decades to come.
That the terminological move began in Britain is not surprising. I have suggested elsewhere (p. 28, fn. 7) that non-list approximations of PR (like STV and cumulative voting) were all but fated to win the advocacy battle due to long-established traditions of party government in Anglo democracies. In short, reform in said democracies is prone to “rage against the machine.” That’s because incumbents didn’t — and maybe still don’t — need it to prevent coalition raids and/or shore up party discipline. On that, I recommend two papers. The first contains a short section on why early party government might close off what I call an insulating PR adoption. (These papers also cover the problem of coalition raids under Hermens’ preferred “majority system.”)
More on party government. It is not surprising that Hermens piggybacks on Longley. The latter was a scholar of comparative legislatures. (Hat tip to Dan Smith at Penn.) Legislatures generally work more smoothly when organized by parties.
As for Lakeman, it also is not surprising that she led the terminological revolution. Lakeman (1903-95) would have experienced the Liberals’ replacement by Labour as one of the United Kingdom’s two leading parties. Her Wikipedia entry notes lifelong commitment to the Liberal (later Liberal Democratic) Party. Lakeman likely would have been looking for a way to raid the majors’ coalitions — possibly on transfers under STV. Here, it may be helpful to compare a 1990s U.S. Green or the present-day Forward Party.
Further reading: Malcolm Baalman on the origins of the term “first-past-the-post.”
In the Canadian reformer context, we very much use winner-take-all as a synonym for majoritarian systems including alternative vote / instant run-off voting. I’m surprised to learn that isn’t the case in the US but it does clear up to me some confusion I had with Fair Vote USA’s use of the term. How is that usage even justified though? It seems to me that any majoritarian system meets the plain language definition of winner-take-all.
Winner-take-all basically means “not the current system.” This seems to be the case across Anglo democracies. Whether it comes to mean IRV/AV as well seems to depend on context. It also used to apply to that in the U.S., and I think some reformer websites also describe it as such (which is good). My best guess at a systematic hypothesis is that it’s a slogan whose meaning changes, but what’s constant is that it taps (and was meant to tap) desire to “break out” of some status quo. Did FVC start using it for AV before or after Trudeau’s famous “ranked ballot” comments?
I just dug through my personal emails and I found references to AV as winner-take-all going back to 2011 (which is the year I got involved in Fair Vote Canada). This is prior to Trudeau becoming leader or as far as I know discussing the issue publicly. There was a bitter internal fight about endorsing AV for municipal elections in Ontario going on in FVC at the time so I think that’s where this originates, but I’m not sure on the details.
The context of the reference I found was preparing to fight a resolution for “preferential voting” put forward by the Saskatchewan wing of the Liberal Party of Canada for the 2012 convention. Trudeau did endorse the resolution on the day of the convention during the debate on the resolution, and as far as I know that’s the first time he spoke on the issue. If memory serves he seems to have confused preferential voting and proportional representation in his comments. The resolution passed, but it started a dialogue with Stephane Dion and a few authors in caucus that managed to get a broader promise that included proportional representation passed at the 2014 convention and eventually into the platform.
We also got a resolution for a Citizens’ Assembly on electoral reform that would consider ranked ballots and/or proportional representation and the status quo passed at the 2023 convention, which Trudeau immediately rejected. The life of a Liberal that supports pro rep is a bit painful.
Here’s the relevant parts of the statement from 2011:
Some in the Liberal Party are proposing Alternative Vote (AV) or Instant Run-Off (IRV) as a replacement for FPTP. AV/IVR is an accessorized winner-take –all system which is very similar to and shares almost every flaw of FPTP. One MP is elected per riding but voters rank their candidate preference 1-2-3 on their ballot. The candidate receiving more than 50% of the first choice votes wins outright. If no candidate wins 50%, the least popular candidate is dropped and those ballots are re-assigned to the second choice candidate until one candidate acquires 50% plus 1 of the ballots. Basically, AV acts to formalize strategic voting.
AV still leaves a large portion of the electorate unrepresented. Both AV & FPTP negate the democratic principle of equal representation for every vote.
AV is not more democratic, it is a majoritarian system (50% &1) so up to 49% of the electorate will still not be represented. Representative democracy is about majority rule after all citizens are fairly represented in Parliament.
AV exaggerates the tendency of the FPTP to direct all voters to choose between the two big tent parties
& favours the centralist parties. By supporting AV, the LPC will be open to criticism from rivals on all sides of being entirely self-serving and increase the risk of further erosion of Liberal support.
AV will not fix the problem of single party domination in particular regions. AV could make regional distortion worse.
As a winner –take-all, single member system AV does not resolve the issue of under representation of women and minorities.
AV will perpetuate adversarial politics. As long as the culture of politics continues to be adversarial
women will continue to avoid standing for election. AV is business as usual and not the meaningful
change so many Canadians desire.
This past November, after a lengthy national debate and 2 referendums, New Zealand soundly rejected AV/FPTP in favour (57.77% of vali votes) of proportional representation (MMP).
For a more detailed and referenced discussion of Alternative Vote, please go to http://www.FairVote.ca
I just checked with Wilf Day and he has a copy of the very first tabloid that Fair Vote Canada put out in 2004, which reads:
“Is the Alternative Vote really an alternative?
The Australian system – called the Alternative Vote – is a winner-take-all system, which is often confused with some form of proportional representation.”
So Fair Vote Canada has been using winner-take-all and majoritarian interchangeably since our founding apparently.