Electoral Reform 101: What’s Next for America’s Voting System?

Alternatives to the Electoral College

My recent article on what the Electoral College (EC) is and why it should die received a lot of engagement and questions, so let’s dig in.

1. What happens when the popular vote is dominated by a dangerous majority?

2. Are there other ways to modify the Electoral College?

3. If our electoral system is so bad what would you replace it with?

4. Why don’t you understand that vinyl does sound better than digital?

That last one seems out of left field if you didn’t read the original post, so you should go check it out. I even recorded an audio version for you. Go ahead, I’ll be here when you get back.

The Tyranny of the Masses: Proceed with Caution

In the article, I explain how the Electoral College works (or doesn’t), why America’s slave owning founders invented it, and the negative impacts the system has had in modern times.

I wrote about America’s longstanding opposition to the EC. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is the alternative with the most momentum in recent years. It’s basically a national, popular vote.

But is that really what we want?

What happens when you decide who’s president by majority rule, but the majority of the population believes in a bunch of toxic, harmful garbage?

The Greeks thought plenty about democracy when they were inventing it. They tried direct democracy, basically majority rule.

Aristotle wrote about a lottery system used in Athens. The practice was called sortition. Certain public officials were elected by lottery. Sortition was intended to reflect the idea that all citizens were equally qualified to govern.

How’s that sound for modern day America? Yeah, didn’t think so.

Popular Vote or Popular Mob? The Risk of Going All-In

Alright, so, the popular vote. It sounds like democracy’s no-brainer: most votes wins, end of story. And in theory, that’s perfect, right? It feels like the grown-up way to do things, like splitting a pizza where everyone gets one slice, no matter how loud they chew or how many toppings they demand. It’s fair, it’s equal, it’s simple.

Every vote counts equally, regardless of whether you live in Iowa or Manhattan, which means candidates would actually have to listen to people outside of battleground states.

Maybe.

The situation might get tricky when 300 million people spread across fifty states all start demanding attention. Sounds inclusive until you imagine candidates ignoring the Dakotas to just cozy up to New York, California, and Texas. Rural voters might as well be on Mars.

The popular vote is all well and good except “majority” isn’t synonymous with “right” or “just.” In theory, giving the majority control sounds like common sense. Who doesn’t want the most people to get what they want? But what if what they want is dangerous? History is littered with examples of popular sentiment that didn’t exactly age well. The majority once believed the Earth was flat, that leeches were cutting-edge medicine, and, let’s not forget, they were once pretty okay with witch trials a.k.a. violently persecuting strong, smart, and sexually confident women.

Doesn’t take a ton of imagination to apply that to modern politics. If the majority decides, they could theoretically vote in leaders who erode civil rights, ignore environmental catastrophes, or marginalize entire groups simply because those groups are a minority.

The tyranny of the majority isn’t just a theoretical risk. It’s baked right into human nature. We like what’s familiar, we fear what’s different, and when left unchecked, that fear can turn into policies that seem to come straight out of a dystopian novel.

So while a popular vote might give us that warm, fuzzy feeling of democratic purity, it also hands over the keys to the majority, regardless of where they're headed. And if that majority decides to turn the car straight toward a cliff, well, everyone—whether they voted for it or not—is along for the ride.

Can The Electoral College Graduate Into Something Else?

There are a couple alternate proposals discussed as ways to modify the EC, but none would have changed results of recent elections, including 2016.

These reforms face some big obstacles anyway:

• Constitutional amendments require approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of states.

• Recent polling shows Republican voters particularly support keeping the current system.

• Any changes would face extensive legal challenges.

The NPVIC remains the most feasible alternative. It already has substantial momentum, doesn't require a constitutional amendment, and can be implemented through state legislation rather than federal action.

As I said in my last article, our current system is broken in so many fundamental ways it’d take way more than reforming or even abolishing the Electoral College to find our way to a fair and ethical electoral system.

I don’t know how to fix the way money is destroying our political system although somehow rolling back the disastrous Citizens United case of 2011 would be a start. But let’s consider alternatives to the other worst part of the U.S. electoral system: the two party system we’re stuck with.

Alternative Models

A number of democracies feature parliamentary systems, which I’ve always thought could be fun for Murrica.

In a parliamentary system, power is concentrated differently. Instead of a single, separately elected president, the executive leader—the prime minister—emerges directly from the majority party of the legislature. This setup allows for more than two dominant parties. Smaller parties have real influence because they can join coalitions, giving voters more nuanced choices and making compromise a fundamental part of governance.

But the U.S. is locked into a presidential system. Our Constitution separates the executive and legislative branches, creating a winner-takes-all environment that favors only two parties. The structure itself restricts the possibility of a multi-party, coalition-driven government. A parliamentary system thrives on diversity of representation, but for now we’re stuck with two voices shouting at each other instead of more.

Then again, if we keep allowing the principle of separation of powers to be undermined, who knows what kind of brand new system might just be possible. Spoiler: I don’t think it would be very fun.

So what options are we left with in this strange, political game we’ve designed, where a vote in one state counts differently than a vote in another?

RCV + PR = Huh?

One proposal is Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV), a system that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. With this electoral reform, voters rank candidates by preference, and if no one achieves a majority, the least popular candidates are eliminated, and votes are reallocated based on second-choice preferences. It’s a way of saying ‘I like this candidate best, but if they’re out, I’ll support my next choice.’

The state of Maine and cities like New York and San Francisco have implemented RCV in some elections, demonstrating it can work within a presidential system.

It’s a solution aimed at reducing the ‘lesser of two evils’ mentality and encouraging coalitions. This reform could encourage more third-party and independent candidates to run, making it easier for voters to support alternative voices without fear of “wasting” their vote.

In this RCV example, Chattanooga loses round 1, so the people who chose it as #1 are now supporting their #2 choice by default in round 2.

Then there’s Proportional Representation (PR), a more ambitious idea.

Imagine an America where congressional districts don’t simply send one representative to Washington but multiple, each representing different political perspectives within the same community.

PR has limited momentum in the U.S. since it would require substantial changes to the structure of Congress. It’s more of a fun pipe dream for academics and nerds like me. Theoretically, we could diversify party representation and reduce that blasted two party dominance by making our system a little more parliamentary and funkadelic.

While RCV could happen without a constitutional amendment, PR could not. For starters, we’d need to expand the number of seats in Congress. The current count of 435 members in the U.S. House of Representatives has been set since the year a stock market crashed ignited the Great Depression, the Academy handed out it’s first Oscar, and Babe Ruth became the first MLB player to hit 500 home runs—1929. And we’d still have to solve how PR would functionally change the election of the actual president.

If we’re just looking to renovate this American experiment, RCV is probably the best fit. It’s a less disruptive and incremental change, more palatable to a public wary of radical shifts.

Various states are debating their electoral process this week. As I write this from Las Vegas on the eve of the 2024 Election, Nevada ballot question #3 proposes significant changes to their electoral system, including some ranked-choice voting.

Spin The Black Circle

To summarize:

• The Electoral College is not great.

• The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) already has momentum and could get the US to a national, popular vote, which has pros and cons.

• Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) is another way to modify the current system and is already being used in some places.

• Proportional Representation (PR) would diversify our reps but also overhaul the U.S. Constitution.

• Freedom is everything, starting with fair elections, which continue to operate with the utmost security and integrity, and we should never trust anyone who tries to undermine our votes and the legitimate outcomes of the process.

BUT… what about that vinyl vs digital question? Let’s put it to a direct vote!

Also…

Would you change the current electoral system in the U.S., and what would you like to see? Let me know in the comments.