If we were to agree to keep an electoral college, but with reforms...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'd preferred the third option as the most democratic one.

Discuss.

[Del Tachi]

I would prefer a modified Maine/Nebraska plan, with electoral votes assigned by congressional district and then the two "Senate" electors being given to whichever candidate won the more congressional districts in a state (Yes, this is a Republican hack plan, and I am a Republican hack, so go figure).

I would like to point out that the NPVIC is a reform of the electoral college as well.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes, if the top 2 vote getters dont get 50% and we have a situation like 2000 or 2016, were EC winner doesnt match PVI, have a runoff, where PVI is the decider.

[MarkD]

Option 2, with the two extra votes assigned to whichever candidate wins the statewide vote, like Maine and Nebraska do. BTW, in 2012, if all states had used Option 2, Mitt Romney would have won the electoral college, 274 to 264. Romney won several more congressional districts than Obama.

[Sirius_]

Option 2, with the two extra votes assigned to whichever candidate wins the statewide vote, like Maine and Nebraska do. BTW, in 2012, if all states had used Option 2, Mitt Romney would have won the electoral college, 274 to 264. Romney won several more congressional districts than Obama.

An election in which Obama won the popular vote by 5,000,000, which makes this an example of why such a change would be unhelpful. Not only does it perpetuate the problem that comes with basing election results off of geography but it also makes presidential elections susceptible to gerrymandering. And option 1 sounds like an obvious recipe for corruption.

So, option 3 is of course the best, and the closest we could get to "fair" under the EC. Of course, doing this renders the college pointless (not necessarily a bad thing).

[Sestak]

Option 3, of course. Gerrymandered presidential elections are the one thing that would be worse than the current system under basically any criteria.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

And option 1 sounds like an obvious recipe for corruption.

Really? It eliminated the electors, the state simply gives the electoral votes to a winner.

Example: Clinton wins in Nevada, the state certifies results and declares she won 5 evs, which are then added to a total while official congressional count.

[KaiserDave]

The ME/NE option could put an end to the Republic as we know it, with gerrymandered elections, one could allow candidates who receive 30-40% nationwide to become President.

[Medal506]

I would say a perfect reform would be to not awarded electors to any candidate unless they can win a majority of votes in said state. If none of the candidates can get a majority in the state then every state that did not award a majority of vote to any candidate can vote in a run off election on the first Tuesday of December.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Interstate compact to allocate electors to the national popular vote winner or bust.

(Even better would be to use the compact to enforce some kind of second-round selection method in the case of no candidate receiving a majority, even if it's as simple as forcing Congress to select a winner.)

If there's no popular vote majority, how about just using the current electoral college?

[7,052,770]

I just calculated a result from 2016 that is proportional, but with the caveat that you can't round up to 1 electoral vote in a state, and only whole numbers of electoral votes is allowed.

268   Hillary Clinton
265   Donald Trump
3      Gary Johnson (2 CA, 1 TX)
1      Jill Stein (CA)
1      Evan McMullin (UT)

I still strongly prefer the popular vote, and I think we might want to multiply state totals by 10, but this is at least an improvement over the current electoral college since it's likely going to more resemble a national popular vote in total.

[Hammy]

Combination of the first and third--award electoral points based on proportion won, removing the actual electors

[TML]

I support retaining the winner-take-all method of assigning electors, but requiring the top two vote-getters of a state to advance to a runoff if neither gets an absolute majority of the state PV. This method would mirror electoral systems used in many parts of the world, and would probably have resulted in the NPV winner winning the EC in both 2000 and 2016.

[The Mikado]

How about every state has a top-two runoff if no one hits 50 in it? If a candidate gets 50% of the vote, they automatically get all the electors, if not, they hold a runoff election the first week of December in that state. States that voted 50%+ for a candidate just don't vote again during the second round. Runoffs are skipped if one candidate secures 270+ in the first round.

EDIT: In 2016, that would've produced this:

Trump 198
Clinton 183
To Be Determined in Runoff 157

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

How about every state has a top-two runoff if no one hits 50 in it? If a candidate gets 50% of the vote, they automatically get all the electors, if not, they hold a runoff election the first week of December in that state. States that voted 50%+ for a candidate just don't vote again during the second round. Runoffs are skipped if one candidate secures 270+ in the first round.

EDIT: In 2016, that would've produced this:

Trump 198
Clinton 183
To Be Determined in Runoff 157

Heh, I've made a thread on this a while ago, but no one cared to weight in

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312471.0

[7,052,770]

How about every state has a top-two runoff if no one hits 50 in it? If a candidate gets 50% of the vote, they automatically get all the electors, if not, they hold a runoff election the first week of December in that state. States that voted 50%+ for a candidate just don't vote again during the second round. Runoffs are skipped if one candidate secures 270+ in the first round.

EDIT: In 2016, that would've produced this:

Trump 198
Clinton 183
To Be Determined in Runoff 157

Does anyone want a whole nother month of campaigning? Do the runoff the next week.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I just calculated a result from 2016 that is proportional, but with the caveat that you can't round up to 1 electoral vote in a state, and only whole numbers of electoral votes is allowed.

268   Hillary Clinton
265   Donald Trump
3      Gary Johnson (2 CA, 1 TX)
1      Jill Stein (CA)
1      Evan McMullin (UT)

I still strongly prefer the popular vote, and I think we might want to multiply state totals by 10, but this is at least an improvement over the current electoral college since it's likely going to more resemble a national popular vote in total.

interesting.

[The Mikado]

How about every state has a top-two runoff if no one hits 50 in it? If a candidate gets 50% of the vote, they automatically get all the electors, if not, they hold a runoff election the first week of December in that state. States that voted 50%+ for a candidate just don't vote again during the second round. Runoffs are skipped if one candidate secures 270+ in the first round.

EDIT: In 2016, that would've produced this:

Trump 198
Clinton 183
To Be Determined in Runoff 157

Does anyone want a whole nother month of campaigning? Do the runoff the next week.

Plenty of situations where we don't know whether a candidate got 49.8% or 50.1% in a state by a week out. It'd be hard to tell if there needs to be a runoff in certain states.

A year in which the Dems end up getting really, really close to 50% in Colorado, for example, would take a while while mail-in ballots come in.

[Senator Incitatus]

The preferable option is the status quo, which can not be detached from its status as the only possible option other than dissolution.

[CEO Mindset]

Keep as is, but make it explicit that the popular vote is ONLY advisory/a suggestion and not binding to avoid confusion and people assuming the PV is somehow more important than ev.