“WINNER TAKE ALL”
ELECTORAL COLLEGE
In this system, which is
•
CONS
The possibility of electing a president without
popular support
•
The risk of so-called "faithless" Electors
•
May hurt voter turnout (why vote as a Dem in TX?)
•
Risks failure to accurately reflect the national
popular will
•
PROS
Contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by
requiring a distribution of popular support to be
elected president
•
Forces candidates to campaign in smaller states and
not only urban centers
•
Contributes to the political stability of the nation by
encouraging a two-party system, and
•
Maintains a federal system of government and
representation with state electors
essentially the system we use
today, each state gets a certain
number of electoral votes. The
winner of that state’s popular
vote receives ALL of the
electoral votes for that state,
regardless of what percentage of
the vote they get.
POPULAR VOTE
In this system, the winner of the
•
CONS
Requires a Constitutional Amendment to remove the
electoral college
•
Focus shifts to urban areas and large populations (Who
is going to campaign in rural Montana?
•
May hurt voter turnout (why vote when it is 1 of 150
million—it won’t matter)
•
Questions on how to declare a winner (Do you need
over 50% of Americans to support? Do we use a Instant
Runoff system where you rank the candidates?)
•
May hurt 3rd Party Candidates
•
PROS
Contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by giving
each vote the exact same weight as another
•
May help voter turnout by eliminating the electoral
votes
•
Eliminates the concern that faithless electors can impact
the election
•
Would accurately portray will of the people in the US by
ensuring that the winner was the candidate wanted by
most Americans
election would simply be the
candidate that receives the most
votes. There are multiple views
on how to implement this
system and whether a candidate
must receive 50% of the vote or
higher to win, but the main idea
is the person with the most
votes will win the election.
PROPORTIONAL
ALLOCATION
In this system, the electoral
college system would remain.
However, the winner-take-all
•
CONS
The possibility of electing a president without popular
support
•
The risk of so-called "faithless" Electors (Can we figure out
what 12 vote for one candidate and what 8 vote for another)
•
Questions remain about what to do with votes that do not
break evenly (i.e. 55% to 45% in a state with 10 electoral
votes or 51% to 49% in state with 4 EC Votes)
•
Risks failure to accurately reflect the national popular will
and does not stop state inequality in EC
•
Risks candidates focusing on states with big populations
(why go to MT where you would get at most 2 of the 3 votes
when you can aim for 30 in CA?)
system would be abolished for a
•
PROS
Encourages voter turnout by knowing that your vote can
impact the election (Dems in TX and Reps in CA will try to
get as many votes as possible)
•
May force candidates to campaign in smaller states and not
only urban centers by keeping EC in place
has 20 EC Votes), you would get
•
Eliminates the winner take all system
60% of the electoral votes (12).
•
Maintains a federal system of government and
representation with state electors
•
Forces candidates to campaign in rural areas of major states
and not just cities
model that gave proportional
votes based off of the statewide
votes. For example, if you were to
get 60% of the votes in PA (which
This would ensure that electoral
ballots were representative of the
population within the state.
CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT METHOD
•
CONS
The possibility of electing a president without popular
support and does not solve inequality of state
representation
•
The risk of so-called "faithless" Electors still exists
•
Incentivizes politicians to draw Congressional districts
to help their political parties
•
Risks failure to accurately reflect the national popular
will
•
Risks campaigns will narrow focus to only swing
districts and avoid the rest of the country
•
PROS
Contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by
requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected
president
nationally. In this system, the
•
Forces candidates to campaign in many areas of the US
winner of each Congressional
•
Helps voter turnout and vote becomes localized (my
vote would really count when it is only the people of my
home area)
•
Maintains a federal system of government and
representation with state electors
•
Has worked successfully in Maine and Nebraska
In this system, the Electoral
College would remain in place.
However, the winner-take-all
system would be eliminated and
the model of Maine and
Nebraska would be adopted
District would get 1 electoral
vote, while the state popular
vote winner would get 2
electoral votes.
NATIONAL BONUS
•
CONS
Does not solve issue of person with less votes
winning election (though it does make it far less
likely
•
Does not help a third party candidate emerge
•
Does not fully address the inequality between the
states in terms of electoral power
•
Does not address faithless elector problem
•
PROS
Keeps the current system in place, but helps ensure
the popular vote winner has a better chance at
winning
•
Would encourage voter turnout (Republican in CA
may make difference in national popular vote)
•
Forces campaigns to appeal to the masses for the
102 point bonus (Campaign across country—not just
swing states)
•
Maintains a federal system of government and
representation with state electors
This system would keep the current
Electoral College votes in place, but
would give the national popular vote
winner an additional 102 electoral
votes (2 from each state). This
would make the EC have a total of
640 votes and it would take 321
votes to win.