Electoral College Reform - A Compromise

Liberty
1

I must first lead off by stating I am not for popular vote being installed in the stead of the Electoral College. I believe that would just change the focus from swing states to large urban ones and doesn’t address the real issue: is the Electoral College properly representing the will of the whole country?

ElectoralCollege2024.svg
ElectoralCollege2024.svg800×466 48.1 KB

Posted above is the electoral college as it stands in 2024. To win, a candidate must reach 270. Now Posted below are the results of the previous two elections: 2016 and 2020

ElectoralCollege2016.svg
ElectoralCollege2016.svg1200×698 140 KB

ElectoralCollege2020
ElectoralCollege20201024×698 76.7 KB

As anyone could tell you whose been around a while, swing states have been key to both of these elections, and have been so for far longer. My concern would be that this enables candidates to focus mostly on issues important to those 10 or so states while being able to rest on their laurels for the rest.

The Proposal

Each individual state will divide their allotted electoral college votes by the percentage of votes received. Here’s how that will work:
1. Electoral college will be divided by each state. For example, if one candidate won 60% of the vote in Colorado, which has 10 votes, they would receive 6 of the votes. A second candidate who won 40% would get 4.
2. To receive an electoral vote, a candidate much reach a proportional percentage threshold. This will effect small and large states the most. For example, Wyoming only has 3 votes to give. So, in order to get a vote, a candidate must reach 33.3% of the vote. If they get 32%, still no EV for them. On the flipside, California has 55 meaning a candidate needs to only get 1.81% of the vote to earn one.
3. Votes cannot be divided, so any extra percentage goes to the winner of the state. For example, if a candidate wins 51% of the vote in Colorado, they get 6 EVs instead of 5.1. If there is a direct, vote for vote tie in a state that does not have an even number, the Governor of that state will cast a tiebreaker vote.

Supporting Argument
So what does this look like, and why do it at all? Under this system, every state is now a possible source of votes for a candidate, and every last one counts. This greatly enfranchises voters in all states, including deeply red and blue ones. It also gives more opportunity for 3rd party and independent candidates to succeed.

To provide an example of how this would effect elections, I simulated both the 2016 and 2020 elections and these were the results:

2016 would see Trump still win, but he would only do so by 2 Votes. Five separate Candidates, 4 from parties and 1 independent, would see themselves win votes. Trump would have earned 18 votes from California, which would have been more than from any other state including Texas, which would have given him 16. Only 2 states were total shut outs, with Trump claiming all three votes from both Wyoming and North Dakota.

2020 would also see Biden still win, but instead of winning 306 to 232, his advantage would have shrunken by 25 Electoral Votes to 281. In my estimation, a much more accurate portrayal of voter sentiment at the time.

Put simply, this model would give a lot of voice to people who haven’t had a real say in Presidential elections in decades while still preserving balance between the large and small states as the founding fathers intended.

If you made it this far, thank you for reading, and I would appreciate your input.

4 Likes
2

I have a counter proposal. Each state election a stand alone and each state gets just 1 vote. Best of 50 wins.

3

My concern with that it is goes too hard the other way, giving way too much power to the smaller states (eg, like the New Jersey Plan for the Constitution which would have done something similar with Congress, which was in direct opposition to the Virginia Plan which advocated for only population mattering for it, and then the Connecticut Compromise is what created the Senate being by state and the House being by Population, seeking balance).

4

Then all that was destroyed when the Senate became by popular vote not appointment by the Gov.

5

Very convaluted, but I like the spirit. It’d be simpler if every state is encouraged to adopt the NE & ME distribution, but as the EC votes are handled and structured at the state level, as far as districting goes, it likely doesn’t have sway at the federal level

6

For obvious reasons- I like this proposal because it would not incentivize our politicians to immigrate citizens into major liberal cities and swing states.

While at it make Electoral College within each state
1 vote per voter district within every state

I know - dream on - wishful thinking :thinking:

7

I believe our representatives should reside in the state they represent and recieve the median wage of that state. They should attend meetings via skype,facetime,zoom, no more traveling to washington on our dollar. All congression meetings shoukd be open to the public to oversee, we the people, right? This would reduce lobbying, give every american the ability to oversee our representatives, and replace their butts if they dont do what we ask them to do. By making the median wage of their state they represent they would assuredly fight harder for better economics.

8

I like the overall idea behind this one. I have an idea that could possibly be incorporated into this plan.

  1. Implement the Congressional District Method… with a twist: The congressional district method allocates one electoral vote to each congressional district. The winner of each district is awarded one electoral vote, and the winner of the state-wide popular vote is then awarded the state’s remaining two electoral votes. For example: Illinois currently has 19 electoral votes. Illinois has 17 congressional districts, each represents about 1 vote and also has 2 electoral votes representing its senators which would allocate the popular vote. So instead of a winner-takes-all method Illinois would be able to give out certain allocations of votes depending on how each of its districts votes. Chicago would no longer be able to determine the entire states vote. Nebraska and Maine currently use this method.

The twist would be to incorporate more electoral votes for the counties with 1 Million+ residents. For example: as of 2023 Illinois has 12.55 million people and Cook County (Chicago) makes up about 5.1 million of those people. One county makes up about 40% of the states population. So that district would receive a few more electoral votes because of their dense population. I’m not entirely sure how they would be allocated, but it’s just a thought onto the initial method.

I believe that this way of delegating electoral votes truly shows the diversity of each states districts. The Chicago area makes up 40% of Illinois population. So hypothetically speaking if each district has different ways of living and culture, sort of like the districts from the hunger games series, then we get a better understanding of what the state wants while allocating out the electoral votes in a just way.

9

Here’s my proposal for dividing up the electoral college. Any county in a state with a population greater than the smallest populated state, which is currently Wyoming at 580,000, would be given their own electoral vote based on population and the rest of the state would be separate. So therefore the Chicago area for instance would get 9 of Illinois 19 electoral votes and the rest of the state 10.

10

Isnt that whats being propser here, but on a larger scale?

11

Decentralizes the EC votes more so that it doesn’t become like a parliamentary system. For example, if a candidate receives 20% of the popular vote in the state and gets 20% of the EC votes available in the state, but doesn’t outright win any district (ie the vote just came from the big city populations) then other voters would feel disenfranchised (ie look at the UK currently, Labor “won” by getting 40% of the vote). The whole point of our system is coalition-building between different groups of people, so it makes sense that if someone receives the majority in a district (or state as a whole under the current system) they’ve built the best “coalition” on specific policies. And it is easier to have 3rd party candidates win in “smaller” races (just look at how close Dearborn, MI was last week)