Final answer:
The winner-take-all feature of the Electoral College awards all electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes in a state, influencing campaign strategies and disadvantaging third-party candidates. Its abolition is complex due to the arduous amendment process and opposition from smaller states.
Step-by-step explanation:
Describe the Winner-Take-All Feature
The winner-take-all feature of the Electoral College signifies that in most states, the presidential candidate securing the majority of the popular vote earns all of the state's electoral votes. This practice is prevalent in every state except Maine and Nebraska, which utilize a congressional district method.
Effect on Presidential Campaigns
In a winner-take-all system, presidential campaigns are strategized to focus heavily on swing states where the outcome is uncertain. Candidates invest more in campaigning in these battleground states to secure their electoral votes, often at the expense of states with predictable outcomes.
Hindrance to Third-Party Candidates
Third-party candidates are at a disadvantage under the winner-take-all system as it requires a significant concentration of votes in individual states to earn any electoral votes. This makes it challenging to compete against the two major parties who dominate state-wide vote pluralities.
Reasons the Electoral College Has Not Been Abolished
Abolishing the Electoral College has not occurred due to the difficulty of amending the Constitution, which requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, followed by ratification from three-fourths of the states. Additionally, the system favors smaller states, which would likely oppose a change that could reduce their influence in presidential elections.