Should we reform the Electoral College?

[International Brotherhood of Bernard]

For the ones who want to abolish the Electoral College, what do you prefer:
Popular vote in one round? Or two rounds?

Would you like the possibility of voting for Ralph Nader in the first round and for the Democrat in the second round?

A two-round system would absolutely kill Democratic turnout and virtually guarantee Republican victory if no one got a majority. It's hard enough getting our voters out for one election, let alone two. I think the best solution would be what Australia uses, IRV. That way you could vote for Nader first preference then have the Dem as your second.

[International Brotherhood of Bernard]

Big cities should be treated as "city-states" during presidential elections. This would make things fair for non-city folk in states like California and Pennsylvania, where rural people have no say.

There's an argument for giving cities with a big enough population (let's say one in excess of the least populated state) more representation, including Senators. That would also include some electoral college benefits.

Though it would probably end up favoring Democrats.

This is actually one of the most reasonable reforms to 1. protect rural interests in presidential elections and 2. protect urban interests in the senate.  It would actually hurt Democrats in the electoral college most likely, but it might make the senate of all things very hard for R's to win.  There are currently 30 cities (excluding DC) with a larger population than Wyoming, the smallest of which being Las Vegas.  If we made each of them new states, 26 of them would reflexively vote Democratic for everything, the only exceptions being Oklahoma City, Jacksonville, and possibly Fort Worth and Houston.

In the electoral college, this probably helps Republicans.  For example, after removing LA, San Diego, San Francisco and San Jose, the remainder of CA would still contain about 30 million people and most of the EVs.  It might be a swing state.  The remainder of IL, PA, WA, OR, MI and OH would clearly flip to R's.  However, the cities now having senator EVs of their own would offset this somewhat.

If we added these 30 new states, that would give 52 new Democratic senators, 4 new Republican senators (OKC and Jacksonville) and let's say a 1-1 split in Ft. Worth and Houston which might be generous to R's.  Now, Republicans would pick up about 15 new senate seats in existing states once the cities were removed, but that would still be a Senate in the neighborhood of a 95D/65R...

I'm kinda proud of the idea even if it's not going to happen. The current Senate system screws over urban populations, as well as groups that disproportionately live in Urban areas.

But you noted the obvious harm to Republicans. There are also would be a point where the Senate gets too big. And cities would have massive incentives to grow populations , at least pn paper, enough to qualify for representation (although there is a fairly major cutoff from Vegas to Albuquerque.) Minneapolis and St Paul would have an argument for a representative for the Twin Cities.

There are ways to avoid some of the problems, including limiting Senate representation to the an arbitrary number of popular cities (IE- ten most populous cities, or nine most populous cities plus DC.)

There might be a few more new swing states than you suggest. Indianapolis and San Diego have Republican mayors, although that's pretty much it. Though Arizona without Phoenix, and Pennsylvania without Philadelphia would be different electorates.

It does seem like a good idea to consider city-states. The cities would be able to have a say in elections, and the suburban/rural voters would not feel marginalized. It might be even better if the big cities like New York/Los Angeles/etc become self-governing, making the Mayor something along the lines of a Governor, Senators (like you mentioned), and U.S. Representatives for the city-states based on the congressional districts that already exist. Then there wouldn't be that many constitutional or logistical issues with the states splitting up their electoral college votes. The city-states would likely favor the Democrats, but I am sure that the Republicans would peel off some new Senators somehow from the new states that are more rural.

I am not sure of the precise details, but I believe that Germany has three self-governing city-states, and that the capital city of Berlin is one of them. I do not have a complete understanding of how they operate, but it might be a good thing to replicate that in America.

In short, I think that it would be a great idea to reform the Electoral College based on the proposals in this thread. However, I think a direct popular vote would be a lot simpler. If no candidate ended up with at least 50% of the vote, then there could be a runoff on the first Tuesday in December between the two highest vote recipients. That would always insure that the incoming President had majority support from the American people. Some states do Senate runoffs along these lines, so I don't see why it wouldn't work for a presidential election, as the runoff provision could be added to the necessary constitutional amendment for bringing about a national popular vote.

A two-round system would be terrible, as if there was a second round it would be almost certain that the Republican would win. It's hard enough getting the Democratic base out just once, let alone again a month later.