It seems every presidential election year, we look at how the electoral college works (or doesn’t), and think there must be a better way. It’s frustrating, in a year with such a stark choice, that my vote effectively doesn’t count (I’m not in a swing state, there’s almost no chance that all of Massachusett’s 11 electoral votes won’t go to Hillary Clinton). The same is true (sometimes in the other direction) for much of the country. If your state is strongly red or strongly blue, your vote matters far less than that of people that live elsewhere. This leaves the election to be decided by a handful of swing states, many of which have state governments, which none of us got to vote for, that meddle with the process to try to influence the outcome. There’s got to be a better system, and I’m here to propose one alternative which I believe solves most of the problems. The system I propose preserves a role for the states in the early part of the process, but reduces their role in the final election. It also creates a more viable path for third party (or no party) candidates.
While the first phase of this system depends on state-wide results, I believe the federal government should set uniform rules for eligibility of voters, and ensure fair and even processes, free from local interference. In an ideal world, the states could apply these rules uniformly, and everyone in the country would have the same fair voting process. History suggests that federal administration will be necessary in at least some places, given those places past antipathy to fair representation for all demographics.
Within each state, those seeking the presidency shall gather petition signatures representing a significant fraction of the number of registered voters in order to appear on the ballot, and/or pay a registration fee sufficient to discourage non-serious candidates. There is no official party role in this, though parties are free to help gather signatures and/or registration fees for their candidates. On the state primary election day (these can still be staggered, to allow focused campaigning, though needn’t (and shouldn’t) be as spread apart as the current primary calendar), the state selects the top three candidates via choice voting, and nominates them for the general election. It should be noted that there is no required party split here, as a state that is currently deep red might nominate three Republicans, while a deep blue state might nominate three Democrats, though most states would be expected to produce a mix, and it’s not unexpected that a popular third party candidate could emerge, as well.
That gives us the list of candidates for the general election. While this list could theoretically be 150 names long, in practice, it is expected to be a much shorter list as there will likely be a good deal of overlap in the state nominees. Though in order for that assumption to be true, candidates will have to contest all 50 state primaries, to reduce the number of people they potentially run against in the general election. For the general election, that is done by a nation wide, instant-runoff vote*, with the winner required to get a majority. This allows people to vote for third party candidates as their first choice, with their safety vote lower down. Their vote isn’t wasted or thrown away, as their next ranked candidates will get their vote if/when their first choice candidate is eliminated as the lowest vote getter in a round of tabulation.
You may note that none of this process leads to a major party nominee for office. If a party wishes to present a preferred candidate to represent them, they are free to adopt, and fund, whichever selection process they like, though a separate process would not be government administered. Alternatively, they could use the some results of the state nominating process to designate their choice e.g. the party associated candidate that is nominated by the most states. Additionally, there is no need for federal election registration to record or care about the party affiliation of voters. (I have a separate proposal for electing Congress, which I also believe should be federally guided.)
This leaves us with a President that is guaranteed to have been elected by a majority of the popular vote, with the votes of all citizens being equally important. It allows smaller parties to stand or fall on their actual appeal, since it removes some of the imperative that currently forces a vote between two parties. Finally, it insulates the process from state shenanigans, while still preserving a role for the states in the early part of the process.
*Choice voting and Instant-runoff use the same mechanism from a voter’s perspective. i.e. The voter ranks as many of the candidates as they choose to in order of preference. The name is different because the tabulation process to select multiple candidates is slightly different than that used to select a single, majority candidate.
