13.4 Ohio’s Winner-Take-All System in Context

The goal of this section is to better understand how Ohio’s election system works and how it compares to other options used in the United States and around the world. Election rules matter because they shape who gets elected and what kinds of voices are represented.

Ohio, like most states, uses the winner-take-all system, also called first-past-the-post. In this model, the candidate with the most votes in a district wins the seat, even if they don’t get more than half of the votes. This approach is simple and easy for voters to understand, and it often supports a two-party system that provides stable government. But it also has downsides. The system can produce disproportional results, where the number of seats won does not match the overall share of votes.

For example, in Ohio’s 2024 U.S. House elections, Republican candidates received 56% of the statewide vote but won 10 of the 15 congressional seats (about 67%). Smaller parties rarely win seats, and votes for losing candidates don’t result in representation, which leaves some voters feeling unheard.

Political scientists call this problem disproportional representation, which means the share of seats a party wins does not match the share of votes it receives. In systems like winner-take-all, the party with slightly more votes can end up with a much larger share of seats, while other voices are underrepresented.

Other places have chosen different systems. Some address these issues. For example:

• Ranked-choice voting – Used in some states, this model lets voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no one wins a majority right away, the last-place candidate is eliminated and their votes are redistributed until someone has majority support. This reduces vote splitting but can be more complex to explain and manage.
• Two-round system – Common in southern states for major offices, this system holds a runoff between the top two candidates if no one gets a majority in the first round. It ensures majority support, which can strengthen the winner’s legitimacy and give them a clearer mandate to govern, but it requires a second election that can lead to voter fatigue and higher costs. Cleveland uses a two-round system for both mayoral and city council elections, which we will explore in more detail when we cover local elections later in the book..
• Mixed-member proportional – Used in countries like Germany and New Zealand, this system blends local district elections with proportional representation. Voters typically cast two ballots: one for a local candidate and another for a political party. The party vote determines the overall share of seats a party should have in the legislature. If a party wins fewer district seats than its share of the vote, it receives additional seats from a party list until the numbers line up. This makes legislatures more reflective of how people actually vote and gives smaller parties a fairer chance at representation. Critics argue it is more complex and can lead to coalition governments, which require compromise among parties and sometimes slow decision-making.

Election systems differ in important ways. By comparing Ohio’s approach with others, we can see how the rules influence the types of candidates who win and the degree to which voter preferences are reflected in government.