Back in 2016 there was a non-Russian election controversy following the Presidential election. The issue was that while Republican candidate Donald Trump won the electoral college vote while Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a little under 3 million. The question was raised — is there something wrong with our election process? Hard line Democrats cried foul and hard lined Republicans claimed the popular vote was decided by “illegal voters”. Taking a nonpartisan approach I am going to take a look at what I think is wrong with America’s election process, and and a proposal for the redesign of the election process.

The Problem:

America is a big country with 50 beautiful states. Unfortunately, from a population standpoint, not all states are created equal. Large segments of the population live in New York, Texas, and California. Population is then reflected in the number of electoral votes each state receives, with California being the most — 55 (outpacing Texas with the 2nd most by 17 votes). Getting rid of the electoral college effectively means candidates would only campaign in areas with large populations. California would become the prime battleground for campaigning since it has several major cities. The problem with that is that campaigning in only large cities completely leaves out rural communities. The needs of someone in Los Angeles, California are completely different from someone in Sioux City, Iowa. Campaigning only in major cities makes it easier for politicians to pander and vastly narrows down the issues they would argue for on the campaign trail.

Additionally, the current format is not perfect either. Most states are winner take all in the electoral college. Meaning win the majority of the state and you win all of their votes. For smaller northeastern states with only 3 delegates it probably doesn’t make that big of a difference, but when you look at states as large as Texas, the different regions will have significant political differences. The winner take all format discourages voter turnout by making votes for libertarian candidates in Republican states effectively meaningless.

The current “First Past the Post Method” really only allows for two large political parties to succeed. The problem with that is the two current parties are very broad. Smaller parties have merit, but their voices are often muffled or never heard. Its incredibly difficult for a minor political party to even get on the debate stage. How can they grow if they don’t even have platform to spread their message? Full disclosure I am a conservative, but I was never on the Trump train. I remember being told I was foolish for not wanting to vote for either of the major party candidates, and that my vote wouldn’t matter. Truthfully living in red state Tennessee it wouldn’t have mattered who I voted for or if I voted at all. The outcome was predetermined. That problem is something intrinsically interwoven with the current voting format.

Background:

Before we can dive into to potential solutions we must establish a few things:

First off, what is the electoral college? The electoral college was established when the U.S. Constitution was adopted as a compromise between the President being elected by Congress or by popular vote. There are currently 538 electoral delegates and in order to win a candidate must receive a majority of 270. If a candidate does not receive a majority then the election is then decided by the House of Representatives. The number of delegates is given to each state is the combined amount of Representatives in the House and Senators. Additionally, Washington D.C. also receives 3 delegates. Each candidate in each state has its own electors that are generally chosen by the candidates party, but state laws do vary. When you vote for a candidate you actually vote for their electors who then meet in December and elect the President. Most states are winner take all meaning which ever candidate reaches a majority will win all of the electors for a state as described earlier. The 2 notable exceptions are Maine and Nebraska which use the “Congressional District Method” which delegates its electors based off the majority winner in each congressional district. This method was adopted in Maine in 1972 and in Nebraska in 1996. Even though it is a new format for the electoral college, it is seen by analysts to give a better representation from individual states.

Since the constitution requires a majority of electoral votes to win the office of President, the U.S. has become a “first past the post” system. This has made it hard for minor parties to have a real impact on U.S. elections. Since the Civil War, only candidates representing either the Republican party or Democrat party have won the Presidency. While there have been several notable minor parties, they are usually just off-shoots of one of the dominant two parties and most do not stand the test of time.

The Solution:

We should not get rid of the electoral college — it does allow for a better representation of the United States instead of just larger populated states being able to dictate elections. However, there is still room for revision. If you split states into the congressional districts, each district won would count as a vote. Additionally the two extra delegates representing a states senate seat would go towards the popular vote winner of that state. For example, lets take a look at Tennessee during the 2016 election. Hillary won two districts and would have received two electoral votes. President Trump won the other seven, plus the popular vote, so he would have won nine electoral votes. There is already some precedent for states splitting their delegates instead of using the typical winner take all formula.

Thats one problem down. Earlier we mentioned the problem with the current “First Past the Post” method. It means after a candidate reaches the minimum number of delegates then they win the election. It has allowed for only two parties to dominate the political landscape of the United States since the end of the Civil War mention earlier. To fix this I suggest implementing the “Heisman Method”. For those not familiar with the coveted Heisman trophy it is awarded to College Football’s most outstanding player. The voting has the voters rank their picks among the finalists. Lets say their are four candidates: Jackson, Griffin, Tebow, and Ingram. If a voter listed them in that order then Jackson would get four points, Griffin three, Tebow two and so on. Using this method would allow for the rise of more political parties and if implemented in primary elections could prevent less desirable candidates that put up a consistent 30% in a field of eight from winning. For a clearer picture check out the 2017 final vote from SBNation.

Conclusion:

The election process is not perfect, and above are some realistic ways we could improve on the current system. However, coming up with solutions and trying to get them implemented are two different challenges. Thats where we come in. We need to hold politicians accountable. Call your Congressman. Be involved in the political process. Most importantly register to vote. Whether you are democrat, republican, libertarian, or federalist, the message should be simple: represent us and our interests, not your own.

Publication written and edited by Davis Crocker and Mustafa Ali-Smith. Keep up with us on our twitter at RedesignAmerica.

Sources:

• U. S. Electoral College, Official - What is the Electoral College?
• Maine & Nebraska