Getting to Know the Electoral College, Issue VI ~ Exploring Alternatives
Let’s face it, by the end of the summer of 1787, a steamy Independence Hall in Philadelphia had begun to wear down the delegates of the Constitutional Convention. As we discussed in Issue I, the delegates’ decision to accept the electoral college as our first presidential election method somewhat resembles the deference one might expect from a class of high school freshmen asked to choose their preferred college in the last 5 minutes before summer break. Years removed from the impact of their non-binding decision and minutes away from escaping their stuffy classroom for an entire glorious summer, you can rest assured there would be a mass, care-free exodus at the first mutter of the school bell.
With the benefit of hundreds of years of data and the knowledge and creativity of millions of impassioned Americans, the only thing more certain than the eagerness of a class of high schoolers yearning for summer break is the existence of viable alternatives to the electoral college institution. In this article, we will explore three such alternative presidential election methods — a start, a better alternative, and a best solution to the inequities imposed by the electoral college system.
- Proportionate Electoral Voting — A Start: In 48 of our 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, states currently award their full slate of electoral votes to the winner of that state’s popular vote. The problems of this all-or-nothing approach are well documented, but a solution is not far from reach. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes based upon the winners in each of its congressional districts, with only the 2 votes representing the state’s senate seats being determined by a state-wide popular vote. This has the effect of dramatically improving proportionate representation and providing a voice to minority groups that live in states that consistently vote in the same direction in presidential elections. Suddenly, tens of millions of Republicans in California and Democrats in Texas would be able to meaningfully impact the presidential election. Imagine a world in which we all felt our votes mattered! The framers of the Constitution imagined it — that’s why many, including James Madison, vehemently opposed the practice of all-or-nothing electoral voting.
2. The Popular Vote — A Better Alternative: Though proportionate electoral voting would be a serious step in the right direction, it still has some big drawbacks. Firstly, electoral votes would still be allocated to each state based upon census data that is updated only every 10 years. The actual members of the electoral college would still maintain freedom to cast a so-called “faithless” vote, and the portion of each state’s vote represented by its senators would still be cast on an all-or-nothing basis. A nationwide popular vote is a simple solution to many of these problems. With a popular vote, EVERYONE’S VOTE MATTERS, and they all count exactly the same. Even better — instead of relying on suspect census data that is only counted once every 10 years, because every vote counts the same, a citizen can make exactly the same impact by casting his/her vote from anywhere in the country. Think about it, folks. This is how every single state governor is elected. No state collects votes by all-or-nothing winners of counties or districts to elect their governor, and presidential elections should be no different. This is the ultimate application of “One Person, One Vote”, and it is a far more democratic approach to elections than the electoral college.
3. The Ranked Popular Vote — The Best Solution: The biggest flaw with a pure popular vote, which exists to an even greater degree under the electoral college system, is the idea of wasting one’s vote — that if a citizen votes for a candidate outside of the two main parties, they are essentially throwing away their vote, as it’s unlikely for a third party candidate to receive more votes than a candidate from one of the two main parties. Enter the ranked popular vote. Under such an approach, every voter ranks their candidates in order of preference. Candidates receiving the fewest first place votes are gradually eliminated and those voters’ second place votes become their first place votes. This process is continued until there are only 2 candidates remaining, at which point the winner will be the candidate with the most ending first place votes.
This approach has some serious advantages. To begin, and this is key, NO ONE EVER WASTES A VOTE. Say in this past election, you really favored a candidate other than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but you (rightfully) felt as if a vote for a third party would effectively render your vote meaningless. Under a ranked voting system, you could vote your third party candidate #1, then vote for Donald or Hills in your preferred order, and in the event that the third party candidate did not receive more #1 votes than Trump or Clinton, your #2 vote would become your #1 vote. Make sense? This highly efficient method of voting yields the same outcome as having 9 rounds of elections & runoff elections for 10 candidates — meaning the ultimate winner really is who the majority of Americans want as their representative. At Voters for a Voice, we view ranked-choice voting as the next great thing in the modern-day republic, and it has the potential to revolutionize our election process. But don’t just take my word for it — multiple states have already adopted ranked choice voting, and organizations like FairVote have a lot of great resources where you can learn more about ranked voting.
In the end, folks, it comes down to this. If you believe in the fundamental equality of human beings, it logically follows that as citizens, we should all have an equal say in the election of our president. The fact is that under the electoral college system, our votes are anything but equal. Voters from certain states influence the outcome of the election by as much as 4 times voters from other states. Even worse, the winner-take-all system creates an environment that depresses participation in non-swing states where individual votes just don’t feel meaningful. I believe that we deserve better and that better is within our reach. That is why we started Voters for a Voice and why we will keep fighting for the voice of every American.
References: See links throughout article for source material. All opinions in this article are my own and are not intended to reflect the thoughts or opinions of referenced materials.
Interested in learning more about the electoral college, how it works and what gets us so wound up about it? Check out our website and previous issues in this “Getting to Know the Electoral College” series:
