Could America have electoral reform?

[Commissar From Kiev]

I want to know if it would be possible for America to experience electoral reform sometime in the 20th century. Specific reforms would include:
~Drafting an amendment that dissolves the electoral college.
~Switching Senate elections to two-member STV districts.
~Switching House elections to either instant runoff voting, two-round voting, or STV.

Now, I recognize this is far-fetched, but, supposing it were to happen, when could it best be shoehorned in?

 

[Nagisaki]

I want to know if it would be possible for America to experience electoral reform sometime in the 20th century. Specific reforms would include:
~Drafting an amendment that dissolves the electoral college.
~Switching Senate elections to two-member STV districts.
~Switching House elections to either instant runoff voting, two-round voting, or STV.

Now, I recognize this is far-fetched, but, supposing it were to happen, when could it best be shoehorned in?

I would recommend increasing Senators per state from two to three. This makes using STV more appealing, as it is easier IMO to justify using it for three instead of two.

 

[Commissar From Kiev]

I would recommend increasing Senators per state from two to three. This makes using STV more appealing, as it is easier IMO to justify using it for three instead of two.

Good point. Three senators per state elected by STV would be more proportional and I've been told odd numbers are better for that system.

 

[jefferypendragon]

I want to know if it would be possible for America to experience electoral reform sometime in the 20th century. Specific reforms would include:
~Drafting an amendment that dissolves the electoral college.
~Switching Senate elections to two-member STV districts.
~Switching House elections to either instant runoff voting, two-round voting, or STV.

Now, I recognize this is far-fetched, but, supposing it were to happen, when could it best be shoehorned in?

Dissolving the electoral college is definitely possible it has been talked about a lot, it is only small change since we almost have a de facto direct voting system anyways.

Senate changing I find not very likely, it is to entrenched in the idea of dual sovereignty between the states and federal government.

The american system is purposely set up as a winner take all system, and it is in the major political parties best interest to keep it that way, a they pretty much dictate who is elected, so i do not think a constitutional amendment getting anywhere near enough votes in congress.

Maybe if a third party consistently started getting ten or twenty percent, and in a presidential election because of that there was no clear winner, and the electoral college decided the winner. If you could set up a scenario like that you might get your plural system and dissolution of the electoral college.

So maybe look for a political party that almost became a major contender and presidential elections where this new contender would of stopped any candidate from getting the majority required for election.

 

[Alexander the Average]

I've been toying with this idea for a while, and I have some ideas for geetting AV as the dominant electoral system. I think the key to doing it would be to break the American two-party system.

The ideal time to do this would probably by the 30s or late 20s. Have the various socialist parties get their act together and start to gain a following. Have Huey Long survive and continue to be a gadfly towards the Democrat establishment, breaking off later down the line. Have the Republicans never fully recover from their 1936 election defeat (contemporaries were predicting that they would collapse and probably would have if they hadn't recovered in the 38 congressional elections). As a result the Democrats are able to govern pretty much uncontested for the next few decades, although the left-wing parties continue to make inroads. In 1948 the Southern Democrats break away and maybe form an alliance with what remains of the Republicans, providing a credible threat to the Democrats from the right.

As a result the Democrats start pushing for AV. Firstly, as the centrist catch-all party they stand to gain the most from this, as those on the left would favour them over the right and vice-versa, and as a result are the party most likely to benefit from alternate votes. Secondly, because of the way the votes are split at this point there are some hideously unrepresentative voting outcomes, such as radical socialists getting elected in places where up to 60% of the population support bourgeois candidates, or out-and-out Klansmen getting elected in districts where the majority support civil rights.

 

[dwalters]

Obviously voiding the anachronistic Electoral College would be easier than changing the entire Federalist system, something I'm for.

My plan (I've written started briefly a DailyKos diary titled "Constitutional Reform").

~Elimination of the electoral college and the direct election of the Prez/Vice-Prez by popular vote
~Reform OR Elimination of the Senate. While name of the US could remain the same, I see the states as administrative regions and not political entities. The states would remain "as is" in terms of their internal organization politically but have no representation in Congress.
~Rewrite of the Constitution through a Continental Congress/Constituent Assembly to expand (and clarify) the Bill of Rights (which would be integrated into Constitution II. Things like "Right to a Job" "Right to an Education" "Right to Health Care" would be enshrined reflecting my own politics.
~Supreme Court Justices would/could serve only one 12 year term.

 

[Commissar From Kiev]

Dissolving the electoral college is definitely possible it has been talked about a lot, it is only small change since we almost have a de facto direct voting system anyways.

Senate changing I find not very likely, it is to entrenched in the idea of dual sovereignty between the states and federal government.

The american system is purposely set up as a winner take all system, and it is in the major political parties best interest to keep it that way, a they pretty much dictate who is elected, so i do not think a constitutional amendment getting anywhere near enough votes in congress.

Maybe if a third party consistently started getting ten or twenty percent, and in a presidential election because of that there was no clear winner, and the electoral college decided the winner. If you could set up a scenario like that you might get your plural system and dissolution of the electoral college.

So maybe look for a political party that almost became a major contender and presidential elections where this new contender would of stopped any candidate from getting the majority required for election.

Brilliant!

If a third party consistently puts the Electoral Vote off-kilter, maybe more successful Dixiecrats a la No Southern Strategy or some other faction, then the electoral system will become, in effect, broken.

 

[Commissar From Kiev]

I've been toying with this idea for a while, and I have some ideas for geetting AV as the dominant electoral system. I think the key to doing it would be to break the American two-party system.

The ideal time to do this would probably by the 30s or late 20s. Have the various socialist parties get their act together and start to gain a following. Have Huey Long survive and continue to be a gadfly towards the Democrat establishment, breaking off later down the line. Have the Republicans never fully recover from their 1936 election defeat (contemporaries were predicting that they would collapse and probably would have if they hadn't recovered in the 38 congressional elections). As a result the Democrats are able to govern pretty much uncontested for the next few decades, although the left-wing parties continue to make inroads. In 1948 the Southern Democrats break away and maybe form an alliance with what remains of the Republicans, providing a credible threat to the Democrats from the right.

As a result the Democrats start pushing for AV. Firstly, as the centrist catch-all party they stand to gain the most from this, as those on the left would favour them over the right and vice-versa, and as a result are the party most likely to benefit from alternate votes. Secondly, because of the way the votes are split at this point there are some hideously unrepresentative voting outcomes, such as radical socialists getting elected in places where up to 60% of the population support bourgeois candidates, or out-and-out Klansmen getting elected in districts where the majority support civil rights.

Not a bad idea, actually

 

[jahenders]

While eliminating the electoral college is discussed quite a bit, getting an amendment passed to do so is a huge challenge. Doing so would be FAR from a "small change" -- it would significantly change the balance of power between the states so that small/thinly populated states essentially ceased to matter at all. It would also change the balance of power between the parties and between power bases within the parties.

Far more practical to get some kind of proportional allocation of the electoral votes (EVs) within every state. That moves in the direction of direct democracy and gives 3rd parties a chance of getting some EVs, but retains a balancing mechanism for the states. If you get a situation where a 3rd party (or some combination of 3rd parties) has 5-10% of the EVs, then they could become power brokers in many elections, demanding concessions to throw their votes to one of major parties. For instance, if the Dems had 255, Reps 255, and various 3rd parties had 28 between them, they could pick the winner. You might wind up with a Republican president with a Libertarian VP and a Constitutionalist AG or a Dem President with a Green VP and a socialist Secretary of Labor.

I, too, would think changing the senate is unlikely.

Frankly, I'd like to see us go to:
- 50 senators (1 per state, single 6-year term)
- 200 representatives (allocated per census, max two 2-year terms)
- President (single 4-year term)
- Judges (8-year limit at each level, district, appellate, supreme, etc)
- Proportional allocation of EVs
- No identification of party affiliation on ballots -- that helps the parties control who's running; it doesn't help the people choose good candidates
- The addition of a "None-of the-above" option on all ballots; if that beats out other candidates, then there's an immediate re-election (a couple weeks) and none of those candidates can run. So, if you have Hillary, Trump, Green X, Libertarian Y, etc and None-of-the-above wins, you'd have an immediate new election with Sanders, Cruz, Green X1, Lib Y1, etc.
- All seating in congress is done randomly, NOT by party affiliation. Perhaps they'd be more likely to work "across the aisle" on issues if there wasn't a physical aisle separating them.

Dissolving the electoral college is definitely possible it has been talked about a lot, it is only small change since we almost have a de facto direct voting system anyways.

Senate changing I find not very likely, it is to entrenched in the idea of dual sovereignty between the states and federal government.

The american system is purposely set up as a winner take all system, and it is in the major political parties best interest to keep it that way, a they pretty much dictate who is elected, so i do not think a constitutional amendment getting anywhere near enough votes in congress.

Maybe if a third party consistently started getting ten or twenty percent, and in a presidential election because of that there was no clear winner, and the electoral college decided the winner. If you could set up a scenario like that you might get your plural system and dissolution of the electoral college.

So maybe look for a political party that almost became a major contender and presidential elections where this new contender would of stopped any candidate from getting the majority required for election.

 

[David T]

It would be possible to abolish the Electoral College de facto without a constitutional amendment: just get enough states to agree that their electoral votes will go to the winner of the nationwide popular vote once enough other states similarly agree. "All" that is required is that states with 270 electoral votes between them agree to this plan. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

It is, however, unlikely under current circumstances that this plan will be adopted by enough legislatures. It is the product of the 2000 election's divergence between the popular-vote and Electoral College result, and hence its support is almost entirely among Democrats. (Democrats in supporting the measure and Republicans in opposing it seem to be ignoring more recent elections--in both 2008 and 2012 the Electoral College actually favored the Democrats; for 2008 see http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/obamas-electoral-cushion/ and there was a similar "cushion' in 2012. But such *hypothetical* "if Obama had done X points worse he would have lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote" scenarios do not have the same power as the *actual* results of 2000.)

What *might* make bipartisan support for doing away with the Electoral College (de facto at least) conceivable would be if Kerry would win Ohio and therefore the Electoral College in 2004 (for some Ohio-specific reasons--shorter lines, no gay marriage referendum, an earlier exposure of the scandals in Governor Taft's administration) while still losing the national popular vote. Once it was shown that the Electoral College not only can award the presidency to the loser of the popular vote--and had done so for two elections in a row--but that it could do so *arbitrarily* (i.e., it could harm *either* party), the politics of the electoral-reform issue might shift. But perhaps I am underestimating the extent to which each party supports or opposes the Electoral College as a matter of principle, regardless of the results.

 

[dwalters]

Frankly, I'd like to see us go to:
- 50 senators (1 per state, single 6-year term)
- 200 representatives (allocated per census, max two 2-year terms)
- President (single 4-year term)
- Judges (8-year limit at each level, district, appellate, supreme, etc)
- Proportional allocation of EVs
- No identification of party affiliation on ballots -- that helps the parties control who's running; it doesn't help the people choose good candidates
- The addition of a "None-of the-above" option on all ballots; if that beats out other candidates, then there's an immediate re-election (a couple weeks) and none of those candidates can run. So, if you have Hillary, Trump, Green X, Libertarian Y, etc and None-of-the-above wins, you'd have an immediate new election with Sanders, Cruz, Green X1, Lib Y1, etc.
- All seating in congress is done randomly, NOT by party affiliation. Perhaps they'd be more likely to work "across the aisle" on issues if there wasn't a physical aisle separating them.

Interesting. The problem one runs into, again, is the smallness of smaller states populations. California has 39 million people, Montana half a million. See? So...yeah "census" but how about having, say, 3 states like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have say, if you use your "200" for the House, to have among them ONE congressmen?

Some of sort of proportion has to be used which is why the States are louse to allocate House seats. Something that by passes this but puts it on something of an equal plane that is democratic. The same is true for the Senate, starkly so. One has to step up and reject "States Rights" and relegate it to the dustbin of history.

So here is another proposal:
Two Houses..."House of Reps" and "Senate".
The House is elected by absolute proportional representation (to destroy the also dumb two party system). Say, 300 seats so it takes 1/300 of the vote for your party list to get a seat in the House. (Israel basically runs like this but has a higher threshold, like 5% of the vote. That's part is debatable).
The Senate, *also* 300 seats, is elected regionally/geographically but NOT by state..but by census lines drawn *nationally* by an independent election committee approved by Congress. Thus such Senate seats might have a Senator voted in by people from multiple small states.

 

[bphillip54]

I wouldn't eliminate the electoral college because candidates will still concentrate on the more populated states for votes. Make the delegates awarded to the candidate that wins the proportional to the vote percentage the candidate got. If he or she got 46% of the vote he or she gets 46% of the delegates. This will put more states into play
I would require that a senator gets 50% of the vote to win office or there is a runoff.
With the House, I would keep the population requirements the same but eliminate the districts. Meaning instead of California having 55 districts it will have 55 representatives and if Democrats get 46% and Republicans get 54% than 26 of the reps are dems and 29 are republican. That will eliminate gerrymandering, but violates the constitution.

 

[dwalters]

I wouldn't eliminate the electoral college because candidates will still concentrate on the more populated states for votes. Make the delegates awarded to the candidate that wins the proportional to the vote percentage the candidate got. If he or she got 46% of the vote he or she gets 46% of the delegates. This will put more states into play
I would require that a senator gets 50% of the vote to win office or there is a runoff.
With the House, I would keep the population requirements the same but eliminate the districts. Meaning instead of California having 55 districts it will have 55 representatives and if Democrats get 46% and Republicans get 54% than 26 of the reps are dems and 29 are republican.

I think you are are still wedded to the artificial "States" concept. As it happens precisely because of the Electoral College candidates in fact only concentrate on those states *with* high electoral count and thus ignore smaller states altogether! Since in a popular election all votes are equal it will likely spread around the campaign a lot.

As second aspect of this is that millions of Democrats in Texas and millions of Republicans in California are *totally disenfranchised* from the election because their minority votes, though in the millions are totally irrelevant. This is simply wrong. We need to advance to a direct popular vote.

 

[bphillip54]

I think you are are still wedded to the artificial "States" concept. As it happens precisely because of the Electoral College candidates in fact only concentrate on those states *with* high electoral count and thus ignore smaller states altogether! Since in a popular election all votes are equal it will likely spread around the campaign a lot.

As second aspect of this is that millions of Democrats in Texas and millions of Republicans in California are *totally disenfranchised* from the election because their minority votes, though in the millions are totally irrelevant. This is simply wrong. We need to advance to a direct popular vote.

If it is proportional, than when a democrat winnings candidate of California only gets 54% from California instead of the democrat winner of California getting all 55 delegates he or she only gets 29 while the losing GOP gets 26. But I see your point with a direct popular vote but maybe a requirement for the winner to get atleast 51% or a runoff

 

[Mikestone8]

With the House, I would keep the population requirements the same but eliminate the districts. Meaning instead of California having 55 districts it will have 55 representatives and if Democrats get 46% and Republicans get 54% than 26 of the reps are dems and 29 are republican. That will eliminate gerrymandering, but violates the constitution.

Violates it how?

There is nothing in the Constitution requiring Representatives to be chosen in districts.

In 1820 an Amendment which would have mandated this (for Presidential Electors as well as Congressmen) came close to passage in the HoR, but fell six votes short of the necessary two-thirds.

 

[bphillip54]

Violates it how?

There is nothing in the Constitution requiring Representatives to be chosen in districts.

In 1820 an Amendment which would have mandated this (for Presidential Electors as well as Congressmen) came close to passage in the HoR, but fell six votes short of the necessary two-thirds.

I believe a representative must represent a group of people not just a state. Under my plan who would be my representative?

 

[Mikestone8]

I believe a representative must represent a group of people not just a state. Under my plan who would be my representative?

Under the present system who is your Senator? You have two to choose from.

Under PR, you would have as many Congressmen to write to as your State happens to have allocated to it.

Obviously, if you prefer single-member districts you are perfectly entitled to support their retention - but I repeat that there is no Constitutional requirement for them. The 1820 Amendment would have mandated them, but it failed and no such Amendment has ever been passed.

 

[bphillip54]

Under the present system who is your Senator? You have two to choose from.

Under PR, you would have as many Congressmen to write to as your State happens to have allocated to it.

Obviously, if you prefer single-member districts you are perfectly entitled to support their retention - but I repeat that there is no Constitutional requirement for them. The 1820 Amendment would have mandated them, but it failed and no such Amendment has ever been passed.

I don't prefer it as much as my suggestion because i believe that my suggestion would lessen gerrymandering and give more voice to those in the state

 

[Alon]

If Kerry had done just a little bit better in 2004, he would have won the electoral college without winning the popular vote - in OTL, Bush won Ohio by a smaller margin than he won nationwide. This might have swayed more Republicans into supporting the nationwide popular vote compact, which is currently entirely supported by Democratic states.

 

[jahenders]

Perhaps, but keep in mind that the current 435 count for congress was simply the result of continual growth for decades until the Apportionment Act of 1911 capped it at 435. It could just as easily have been capped at 100, 150, 200, or any other number along the way. I think 200 is reasonable because it allows for a considerable degree of disparity among states of different sizes but reduces congress to a more manageable (and cheaper) size.

I don't think we should reject the concept of states -- it's a foundational concept of our constitution and throwing it out could/would have lots of bad second order effects.

The idea of absolute proportional representation by party isn't bad, but I don't like the "close list" system that Israel uses. Basically, all the people get to do is vote for a party, having no idea what person the party will actually use. I'd prefer some kind of an "open list" system. Actually, I'd like to see where you vote for a party, but then (based on the party you vote for) you vote on a list of candidates provided by your party. When the number of seats is decided, the party has to assign people based on the list voting.

Again, I don't think we should throw out the semi-state-orientation of the senate. While that might lead to some provincial voting, that's going to exist anyway and the blind party voting is more problematic.

Interesting. The problem one runs into, again, is the smallness of smaller states populations. California has 39 million people, Montana half a million. See? So...yeah "census" but how about having, say, 3 states like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have say, if you use your "200" for the House, to have among them ONE congressmen?

Some of sort of proportion has to be used which is why the States are louse to allocate House seats. Something that by passes this but puts it on something of an equal plane that is democratic. The same is true for the Senate, starkly so. One has to step up and reject "States Rights" and relegate it to the dustbin of history.

So here is another proposal:
Two Houses..."House of Reps" and "Senate".
The House is elected by absolute proportional representation (to destroy the also dumb two party system). Say, 300 seats so it takes 1/300 of the vote for your party list to get a seat in the House. (Israel basically runs like this but has a higher threshold, like 5% of the vote. That's part is debatable).
The Senate, *also* 300 seats, is elected regionally/geographically but NOT by state..but by census lines drawn *nationally* by an independent election committee approved by Congress. Thus such Senate seats might have a Senator voted in by people from multiple small states.