A different plan for reworking U.S. Presidential elections
-
So the Electoral College is widely disliked, but even if we switched to "popular vote" (which is hard to do because of the requirement of supermajority and the fact that one side would benefit more than the other), we'd still be stuck with choose-one and all the downsides of that.
Unfortunately, as long as there is an electoral college, it seems near impossible to switch to something that gives the advantages of RCV or (better yet) Condorcet.
So maybe there is way to get better results with a change that would be more likely to get wide enough approval, as well as directly addressing the biggest problem: the polarizing effect of choose-one voting.
So here's my idea of the day. What if the Electoral College remained, but it was changed such that each elector submitted a ranked ballot? Then, a reasonable method was used to determine the winner based on those 538 ranked ballots.
This would mean that each state could implement ranked ballots for actual voters that are then tabulated into a "overall ranking", which is then submitted by the electors.
But here's the interesting twist: technically they don't have to have their actual voters rank candidates. In states that prefer to continue using choose-one ballots, the ballots submitted by the electors could simply order the candidates based on the total number of votes for each candidate. In addition to the cost savings of not having to change their ballots, this would mean they'd still have precinct summability, and the voters have no additional burden over what they have today.
Over time, I'd expect that most states would go ahead and implement ranked ballots (for voters, as opposed to electors). It's worth considering what the advantage of doing so is.... it might be less than you'd think.
Notice that this would still give small population states the advantage they have today…. Wyoming would still have more voting power per capita than California. That’s as it was originally designed, and while I don’t necessarily agree with it, it is what it is. (i.e. a different issue) But the point is that we can theoretically get the benefits of a ranked electoral system without also having to fight a completely separate battle at the same time.
I’m curious how this would change the dynamic of elections if implemented. I’m also curious who would tend to resist this due to it disadvantaging them? (And of course, has anyone ever suggested this?)
