States’ Ultimate Electoral College Fix
RCV/Top-Two Proportional Allocation/Jefferson Method
While searching for a method to correct deficiencies of the as implemented Electoral College a set of criteria evolved.
1. No amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires approval of two thirds of the members of both houses of Congress or the application of two thirds of the legislatures of the states. Ratification of the proposed amendment is required by three fourths of the legislatures of the states or by conventions in three fourths of the states. Since 1800, more than 700 proposals to reform or eliminate the Electoral College have been introduced in Congress. None have satisfied the Congressional and states approval requirements and it is unlikely any will in the foreseeable future.
2. No incentive to gerrymander
Maine and Nebraska have implemented allocation of Electoral College Votes (ECVs) based on statewide and congressional district popular vote. Two ECVs are awarded to the statewide winner and one ECV is awarded to each congressional district winner. While this avoids the winner-take-all state ECVs, it provides an incentive to gerrymander congressional districts.
3. Avoidance of the POTUS being elected by the House of Representatives
The U.S. Constitution requires that the President of the United States (POTUS) receive a majority of the ECVs or the POTUS is chosen by the House of Representatives with each state having one vote. The 23rd Amendment awarded three ECVs to the District of Columbia for a national total of 538 with a majority being 270. A previous article investigated a method of each state proportionally allocating ECVs based on the statewide popular vote. The method was rejected because in too many past elections, a majority of ECVs would not be achieved by any candidate. While it hasn’t been tested, it is probable that similar results would occur if all states allocated ECVs in the same manner as Maine and Nebraska.
4. Majority ECVs winner corresponds to national popular vote
Another article evaluated states using ranked choice voting winner-take-all ECVs. Certain assumptions were made to simulate ranked choices. While there was improved correlation between total ECVs and the national popular vote than with plurality vote winner-take-all, the method was rejected because in the 2016 election the majority ECV winner would not have been the national popular vote winner.
5. There should be an incentive for POTUS candidates to campaign in all states.
States that utilize winner-take-all ECVs allocation will be ignored by POTUS candidates, unless they are considered battleground/swing states. In the final three months of the 2016 presidential campaign, approximately 90 percent of candidates’ events were in just 10 states. However, states that partition their ECVs based on statewide votes will attract candidates to campaign for one or more of their ECVs.
Top-Two Proportional Allocation Amendment
The Election Reformers Network is promoting a Top-Two Proportional Allocation Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that requires states to allocate their ECVs proportionally to the top two vote-getters in the state. While it failed criteria 1 above — because it eliminated presidential electors and implemented fractional ECVs — it warranted further investigation. Claimed advantages are reducing the impact of a “spoiler candidate” and prevention of “black swan” problems like a presidential election being “thrown to the House”. According to an Election Reformers Network presentation, if their Top-Two Proportional Allocation method had been implemented for the 2016 Presidential Election, Mrs. Clinton would have won a majority of the EVCs instead of Mr. Trump. However, it would not have resulted in Mr. Gore winning a majority of the EVCs in the 2000 Presidential Election even though he received more national popular votes than Mr. Bush. Therefore, it also fails criteria 4 above.
RCV/Top-Two Proportional Allocation/Jefferson Method
What if all states and the District of Columbia implemented ranked choice voting to determine the state/district popular vote top-two winning candidates, and then utilized the Jefferson/D’ Hondt method to proportionally allocate the ECVs? No amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be needed because the presidential electors would be retained and only integer votes would be cast. The instant runoff capability of ranked choice voting would ensure the top winner had a majority of votes cast and the second place candidate had broad support. Unlike winner-take-all, allocating ECVs to the second place candidate would attract campaigning in every state. Since ECVs would be allocated according to statewide popular vote, there would be no incentive to gerrymander. Lets determine if the Top-Two Proportional Allocation/Jefferson (T-2PA/J) method satisfies criteria 3 and 4 for select elections, but for simplicity, without simulating ranked choice voting.
1960 Presidential Election
The presidential election between Democratic Party nominee John F. Kennedy and Republican Party nominee Richard Nixon was the closest race since 1916. It was selected as a test case for the T-2PA/J method because: it was a close race; there was no third candidate receiving at least 1% of the national popular vote; and the ECV majority winner was also the national popular vote winner.
The table below compares the 1960 election results with those using the T-2PA/J method. A total of 68,832,482 votes were cast for POTUS candidates. The total number of ECVs in 1960 was 537 with a majority being 269.
Notice the poor correlation of the national popular vote percentage for each candidate with the plurality winner-take-all electoral vote percentage. Also, notice the close correlation of the national popular vote percentage for each candidate with the 2PA/J electoral vote percentage. It is important to note that even though the top-two candidate national popular vote difference was slight, the 2PA/J method provided a majority electoral vote.
1992 Presidential Election
As stated in a previous article, the 1992 Presidential Election was unusual with independent candidate Ross Perot receiving 18.91% of the total popular votes cast. Consequently, Republican nominee George H. W. Bush received only 37.45% of the total votes and no majority of the votes cast in any state. Democratic nominee Bill Clinton received only 43.01% of the total votes and a majority of the votes cast in Arkansas and the District of Columbia. And yet Mr. Clinton received 370 (68.77%) of the ECVs even though approximately 57% of the popular votes were cast for some other candidate. It was selected as a test case for the T-2PA/J method because it was the only election in the past several decades with a strong third candidate.
The table below compares the 1992 election results with those using the T-2PA/J method. A total of 104,423,923 votes were cast for POTUS candidates. The total number of ECVs in 1992 was 538 with a majority being 270.
Mr. Clinton won approximately 5.5% more of the national popular votes than Mr. Bush and not a majority. However, with the plurality winner-take-all electoral vote method, Mr. Clinton won approximately 30% more ECVs. But with the T-2PA/J method, Mr. Clinton won 7.8% more ECVs and won a majority.
2000 Presidential Election
The 2000 presidential election was a very close race between Republican Party nominee George W. Bush and Democratic Party nominee Al Gore. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader received 2.74% of the national popular contributing to neither Bush nor Gore receiving a majority popular vote. This election was selected as a T-2PA/J method test case because the popular vote winner, Gore, lost to the ECV majority vote winner, Bush.
The table below compares the 2000 election results with those using the T-2PA/J method. A total of 105,405,100 votes were cast for POTUS candidates. The total number of ECVs in 2000 was 538 with a majority being 270.
If the T-2PA/J method had been used in the 2000 election, national popular vote winner Gore, would have won an ECV majority.
2016 Presidential Election
The 2016 Presidential Election was selected as a T-2PA/J method test case because even though Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, had almost 2.9 million more national popular votes than Republican nominee, Donald Trump, Mr. Trump won the election with a majority of the ECVs.
The table below compares the 2016 election results with those using the T-2PA/J method. A total of 136,669,237 votes were cast for POTUS candidates. The total number of ECVs in 2016 was 538 with a majority being 270.
If the T-2PA/J method had been used in the 2016 election, national popular vote winner Clinton, would have won an ECV majority.
2020 Presidential Election
The 2020 Presidential Election was selected as a T-2PA/J method test case because: it had the highest voting participation percentage since 1900; it is the most recent election; and it was plagued with recounts, audits, and court challenges incentivized by the utilized single choice plurality, winner-take-all, voting method.
The table below compares the 2020 election results with those using the T-2PA/J method. A total of 158,383,403 votes were cast for POTUS candidates. The total number of ECVs in 2020 was 538 with a majority being 270.
If the T-2PA/J method had been used in the 2020 election, national popular vote winner Biden, would have won an ECV majority percentage comparable to his popular vote percentage. Also, with the elimination of winner-take-all at the state level there would have been less incentive to challenge the results.
Ranked Choice Voting Enhancement
If the states would utilize ranked choice voting (RCV) in their POTUS election process, then residents who voted for their preferred candidate, could avoid the “wasted vote” or “spoiler” effects that occur with single choice plurality voting. Also, if one of the top-two winners was one of the voter’s ranked choices, then the voter would feel like his/her vote made a difference. If the states continued the instant runoff voting elimination rounds until only the top-two winners remained, then there would be further improvement in the correlation of popular vote percentage to ECVs percentage.
A Desirable and Achievable POTUS Election Method
Coupling the method Thomas Jefferson proposed to use for the 1792 elections to fill the House of Representatives, with the Top-Two Proportional Allocation method advocated by the Election Reformers Network, results in a highly desirable replacement for the winner-take-all Electoral College Vote allocation currently implemented by the District of Columbia and all states except Maine and Nebraska. When enhanced with ranked choice voting, the T-2PA/J method should satisfy the desires of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact promoters while avoiding the cost and delays associated with challenging the election results of every state during a close election. It should be supported by major and third political parties and independents because it results in fair elections. It can be implemented by each state — at their own schedule — because it does not require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. State legislatures should consider, evaluate, and then pass legislation to implement the T-2PA/J method. State residents should encourage their legislators to do so before the 2024 Presidential Election.
