SYNOPSIS:

    The method by which Americans select a President is out of date.
Our Electoral College should be replaced by some system of voting for President
that allows each vote to be counted more equally.

    Direct popular election of the President and Vice President
would be one alternative:  Whichever slate gets the most votes nation-wide
wins that Presidential Election. 

    A less-drastic modification might change the Electoral Votes to Presidential Votes. 
The winning slate (President and Vice President) in each Congressional District
would receive the Presidential Vote for those 700,000 people.  

OUTLINE: 

1.  REPLACING ELECTORAL VOTES WITH PRESIDENTIAL VOTES
     WOULD NOT CHANGE THE PRESENT BALANCE OF POWER.

2.  'BATTLEGROUND STATES' WOULD DISAPPEAR.

3.  PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES WOULD CAMPAIGN WITH
     CANDIDATES FOR THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

4.  STATE AND NATIONAL LEGISLATORS
     WILL HAVE TO CHANGE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

5.  OTHER WAYS TO REFORM OR REPLACE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

6.  CONCLUSION: LET EVERY VOTE COUNT.

---

    The Electoral College was created by the writers of the U.S. Constitution
in order to avoid the direct election of the President of the United States.
The basic idea was that each of the states would send Electors
who would go to Washington, D.C. every four years
for the sole purpose of selecting the next President and Vice President.

    In practice it has not worked this way for many years.
Nowadays, the political parties select Electors.
Each political party in a given state selects a number of Electors
equal to the number of Congressional Districts in that state
plus two more, which represent the number of U.S. Senators from each state.  
In other words, the Electoral College
is exactly the same size as the whole U.S. Congress.  

    But instead of going to Washington, D.C.
to decide on the next President and Vice President,
the Electors meet in the state capitals
after the vote of the people for President and Vice President.
At present we have winner-takes-all elections in most states.
Whichever Presidential slate gets the most votes in that state
empowers the Electors of that party
to cast the actual Electoral Votes for President and Vice President.

    Most people do not know about these Electors.  
Their names seldom become public.
They are selected by their political parties.
And they are always supposed to vote for
the candidates who won the popular election in that state.
But they do have the power (which they sometimes exercise)
to vote for other people.  

    The public hears about "Electoral Votes" for each state.
We are told that each state has a number of  "Electoral Votes"
equal to the number of U.S. Representatives
and U.S. Senators from that state.  

    Minnesota, where I live, has 10 Electoral Votes,
since we have 8 Congressional Districts and
two at-large U.S. Senators who represent the whole state of Minnesota.  
Other states have many more Electoral Votes,
since they have larger populations
and hence more U.S. Congressional Districts.  

    Each 700,000 people elects one U.S. Representative.  
The extra Electoral Votes awarded for the two U.S. Senators
gives the smaller states a little bit more power
than we would otherwise have if the U.S. Congress
(the House of Representatives plus the U.S. Senate)
were elected strictly according to population.  

---

1.  REPLACING ELECTORAL VOTES WITH PRESIDENTIAL VOTES
     WOULD NOT CHANGE THE PRESENT BALANCE OF POWER.

    Should we eliminate the remnants of the Electoral College?
Are we now ready for a more direct election of the President of the United States?
If so, we could preserve the present balance of power,
which favors the smaller states against the larger states.  

    Instead of selecting Electors when we vote for President and Vice President,
our votes for the Presidential slates
could be counted by U.S. Congressional Districts.  
In other words, instead of selecting Electors,
we would determine one Presidential Vote
to be cast automatically for whatever Presidential slate
gathered the largest number of votes in each Congressional District.  

    Members of the U.S. House of Representatives are elected
by a direct vote of the people in each Congressional District.  
My U.S. Congressional District is the 5th of Minnesota,
which includes all of the City of Minneapolis
and parts of nearby suburbs.  

    Since U.S. Representatives are elected every two years,
their elections coincide with the Presidential election every four years.  
Whenever there is a Presidential election,
there is also a race for the U.S. Representative from each District.

    And if we can count the votes for U.S. Representative,
we can count the votes from the same voters
for the U.S. President and Vice President.
The official outcome of the Presidential election
would be announced right along with the results for each Congressional election.
There would be no delay for Electors to meet in state capitals
and no requirement for reporting to the joint session of the U.S. Congress.

    Recounts might be necessary in close races in a few Congressional Districts,
just as recounts are now required for some U.S. Representatives.
But any one Presidential Vote for one Congregational District
would probably not affect the the outcome of the Presidential election.
In other words, the number of Presidential Votes would be known on election night.
And they would be certified just days later
along with all of the other votes counted in the same election.
And uncertain counts in one or two Congressional Districts in the USA
would probably not change the winner in the Presidential election.

    Thus, each of the 8 Congressional Districts in Minnesota
would have one Presidential Vote.
This would eliminate the winner-takes-all system
now in place for the whole state of Minnesota.
And in most elections for President in Minnesota,
some Congressional Districts
would give their Presidential Vote to the Republican slate
and some Congressional Districts
would give their Presidential Vote to the Democratic slate. 

    The two extra Presidential Votes from Minnesota
would be awarded automatically to whichever Presidential slate
got the largest number of popular votes for President in Minnesota.  

    Thus, the over-all voting power of Minnesota
would still be 10 Presidential Votes,
but these votes would be determined by
a more direct and more democratic means. 

    Two states—Maine and Nebraska—
already assign their Electoral Votes according to this pattern:
Each Congressional District gets one Electoral Vote,
based on the popular vote for President in that Congressional District.
And whoever gets the most votes in the whole state,
gets two more Electoral Votes.

    These two states show that it is already possible for individual states
to change how their Electoral Votes are allocated.
States could also divide their Electoral Votes
in proportion to the popular vote in those states.

    But replacing the Electoral College itself with Presidential Votes
would require amending the U.S. Constitution.

---

2.  'BATTLEGROUND STATES' WOULD DISAPPEAR.

    Under the present winner-takes-all system
of electing the President and Vice President,
some states are basically ignored
because a majority of their voters will vote either Republican or Democrat.

    In 2004, there are about 15 so-called "battleground states",
which means that by spending a lot of money,
all of the Electoral Votes of a swing state can be won.
Only a few thousand votes have to be shifted from one party to the other.

    In the 2008 election for President,
there were 6 states and one Congressional District
in which the difference in the popular vote was less than 5%.
(Nebraska was already assigning its Electoral Votes by District.)

    For the 2012 election for President,
the election was decided in about 10 battleground states.
All of the other Electoral Votes are safely in one party or the other.
So all of the attention of the Presidential campaigns went these 10 swing states.
Why spend time and money in states where the Electoral Vote is already settled?
Thus, most of the states that make up the USA can be ignored.

    For example, the whole state of California can be ignored
—even tho it has the largest population of any state—
because it is safely in the Democratic camp.
Republican voters in California had no voice in the 2012 election for President.
Because California has a safe Democratic majority among its voters,
all of California's 55 Electoral Votes went to the Democratic candidate.

    Texas was also ignored, with its 33 Electoral Votes,
since the Republican majority is large enough
to put the whole state in the Republican column.
Democratic voters in Texas did not affect the outcome of the Presidential  Election.

    Under the winner-takes-all system, the voters in the swing states
have more influence on the outcome of the Presidential election
than the rest of the voters everywhere else.
The other voters cannot change the outcome.
How fair is that?

    However, if each U.S. Congressional District
had one Presidential Vote,
then the candidates would pay attention
to winning a majority in each Congressional District.
"Battleground Districts" would replace "battleground states".

    There will still be some Districts that are considered
so solidly in the pocket of one political party
that there is no need for the Presidential candidates
to pay any attention to those voters.  
But many U.S. Congressional Districts could go either way.
Perhaps more than half of all U.S. Congressional Districts
would be "swing Districts".

    Thus, every voter will be considered by each Presidential campaign.  
We will never see some states completely ignored
because they are considered either won or lost ahead of time.
 
    More people will vote under this reform.  
Right now, people who know that they are
in a definite minority in a certain state,
overwhelmingly outvoted by members of the other party,
often decide not to vote at all,
since they know the outcome for their state ahead of time.  

    But when the Presidential Vote is counted by Congressional District
instead of by the whole state,
there is a better chance for each individual vote to be meaningful. 

    Replacing the Electoral College with Presidential Votes
will empower more voters since each voter will be closer to making a difference
in his or her U.S. Congressional District.
Instead of discounting large numbers of voters
because their states are solidly either red or blue,
the voters in some Congressional Districts
will probably give their Presidential Vote to
a slate that has no chance winning the whole state.

    When voters see that there is a real race
for President and Vice President in this own District,
they will go to the polls
and they will vote for the other races on the same ballot. 

---

3.  PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES WOULD CAMPAIGN WITH
     CANDIDATES FOR THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

    Replacing the Electoral College with Presidential Votes as described above
would raise attention for each race for Representatives in the U.S. House.
Because each Congressional District would have one Presidential Vote,
it would be natural for the candidates for President from each party
to coordinate their campaigns with candidates for that Congressional seat.

    For example, the candidates running for the 5th Congressional District
of the State of Minnesota (which is the city of Minneapolis and some suburbs)
would be the most logical coordinators for the Presidential campaigns.
In each such Congressional District each party would present
one candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives
and one Presidential slate for President and Vice President.

    This would make national politics more local.
The Presidential campaign would help local voters
to care more about their Representative in the U.S. House.
Under the present system of winner-takes-all,
the whole state is the focus of campaign organizing.

    In contrast, if the Electoral College were replaced by a direct popular vote for President,
then the focus would broaden to the whole country.
And media campaigning would replace local politics.

---

4.  STATE AND NATIONAL LEGISLATORS
     WILL HAVE TO CHANGE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

    The Constitution of the United States of America
can be changed by a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress
plus ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

    This means that people who favor reforming the Electoral College
can suggest this idea to anyone who might be voting
to change our system of electing our President and Vice President.
Large majorities of both state and national lawmakers will have to be convinced.

    And we see from the examples of Maine and Nebraska that individual states
can make this change even before the U.S. Constitution is amended.
Right now, other individual states can change the way their Electoral Votes are allocated.
This will show that those states would radify replacing the Electoral College
by one Presidential Vote for each U.S. Congressional District
plus two additional Presidential Votes for the whole state.

    However, individual states are not very likely to act alone,
since any such change would be a partisan advantage to the minority party.
This change was suggested for California in 2012.
But it got nowhere, since it would only have given
some Electoral Votes from California to the Republican slate.

    Only when all states make the same change at the same time
(as by amending the U.S. Constitution)
would this be seen as a good reform for all voters.

    If you agree with this reform,
you could invite all of your legislators to read this on-line essay.
Simply send them this URL:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/PRES-VOT.html

    Both state and national law-makers need to be convinced
before the U.S. Constitution can be amended to change the way we elect our President.

---

5. OTHER WAYS TO REFORM OR REPLACE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

    Some states have already taken steps in the direction of making every vote count.
Two states assign their Electoral Votes as described above—Maine and Nebraska.
Also, some states are considering dividing their Electoral Votes
in proportion to the popular vote in that state. 
Instead of invalidating all of the minority voters in that state,
there is a chance that any party in the minority will be able to earn
at least a few Electoral Votes for their candidate.

    If we decide to end the present advantage given to small states,
we could simply drop the two extra Presidential Votes for each state,
based on the poplar vote in that state.
Then there would be 100 fewer Presidential Votes. 
Each Congregational District would have one Presidential Vote.

    Even more radical reformers want to have a simple direct election of the President:
Whoever gets the most votes nation-wide wins the election.
Then it would be just a matter of total votes cast for each candidate,
without regard to the location of the voters.
Each vote counts exactly as much as each other vote. 
But having a direct election of the President and Vice President
does not allow the small states to retain
their present disproportionate power in selecting the President. 
Direct popular vote would make the Presidential election a media campaign,
with millions of dollars spent on advertising in the mass media.
And urban centers with the most votes would get the most attention.
Rural America might be basically ignored.

---

6.  CONCLUSION: LET EVERY VOTE COUNT.

    Let's make the election of the U.S. President more democratic
by assuring that every vote for President and Vice Presidents counts
as much as any other vote in the country.

    But we can preserve some of the power of the states
by continuing to assign Presidential Votes by Congressional District.
The 700,000 people who select one U.S. Representative
will also cast one Presidential Vote in the national election for President and Vice President.

    And whichever slate wins the popular vote in a particular state
would also get two additional Presidential Votes.
Or we could decide to drop these extra Presidential Votes,
which give the smaller states more power to elect
the next President and Vice President of the United States.

    If we agree that the Electoral College is outmoded,
how should we change our method of selecting the President of the USA?

---

---

AUTHOR: 

    James Park is an independent existential philosopher,
living and writing in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 
He votes in every election and wants his vote to be as meaningful as possible.
Much more will be learned about him on his personal website:
An Existential Philosopher's Museum:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/

    Here are three other on-line essays suggesting changes in American government:

Sex-Balanced Senate . D N

The Social Security Tax:
Reforming the Most Unfair Federal Tax  .    D N

Million Dollar Cap:
No One Should Get More than One Million Dollars Per Year from the U.S. Taxpayers  .   D N

---

---

Go to the opening page for this website:
An Existential Philosopher's Museum

---