Electoral College Runoff Election

[Kendall Hart]

The US famously really only has two parties that matter the most in politics, and that’s the Democrats and Republicans. But in the last 4 years or so, we’ve really seen diverging ideas within those political parties. Many of these ideologies would have their own parties if they weren’t part in the US’ two party system. Because of the 270-to-win requirement in the electoral college, obviously the US has consolidated parties - as having the House decide is an ordeal.

But something a few countries use, such as France and Brazil, is a presidential runoff. It’s triggered if no one gets a majority of the vote. Could that be a possibility in the electoral college, where not reaching 270 would lead to a runoff instead of a house vote? Additionally, would that lead to stronger “third parties” in the United States?

 

[Kibbutznik]

The US famously really only has two parties that matter the most in politics, and that’s the Democrats and Republicans. But in the last 4 years or so, we’ve really seen diverging ideas within those political parties. Many of these ideologies would have their own parties if they weren’t part in the US’ two party system. Because of the 270-to-win requirement in the electoral college, obviously the US has consolidated parties - as having the House decide is an ordeal.

But something a few countries use, such as France and Brazil, is a presidential runoff. It’s triggered if no one gets a majority of the vote. Could that be a possibility in the electoral college, where not reaching 270 would lead to a runoff instead of a house vote? Additionally, would that lead to stronger “third parties” in the United States?

No, because as you just described, if neither candidate gets a majority, the House and Senate decide.

 

[Johnrankins]

No, because as you just described, if neither candidate gets a majority, the House and Senate decide.

His point is that the constitution would be changed so there would be runoff elections instead. It might help , but a ranked voting system would help more. That would cover the legistlature as well as the presidency.

 

[Kibbutznik]

His point is that the constitution would be changed so there would be runoff elections instead. It might help , but a ranked voting system would help more. That would cover the legistlature as well as the presidency.

But it wouldn't though...a run-off election only works if the initial round has more than two candidates. A run-off election isn't a solution to the two-party system; it is a policy that can only be implemented after the deconstruction of the two-party system.

Unless I'm fundamentally misunderstanding OP's post, I don't see how a run-off on a national level would actually fix anything in the US.

 

[Kendall Hart]

But it wouldn't though...a run-off election only works if the initial round has more than two candidates. A run-off election isn't a solution to the two-party system; it is a policy that can only be implemented after the deconstruction of the two-party system.

Unless I'm fundamentally misunderstanding OP's post, I don't see how a run-off on a national level would actually fix anything in the US.

So I understand what you’re saying and it makes sense. So maybe scrap it being implemented in 2020. But there has been several instances in American history (like 1912 for example) where third parties have had really strong candidacies and over time. There also have been times when more than even three parties have really made a run for President.

So I guess let’s play the long game here and say it was implemented in the early 20th century, would it change much by 2020?

 

[Johnrankins]

But it wouldn't though...a run-off election only works if the initial round has more than two candidates. A run-off election isn't a solution to the two-party system; it is a policy that can only be implemented after the deconstruction of the two-party system.

Unless I'm fundamentally misunderstanding OP's post, I don't see how a run-off on a national level would actually fix anything in the US.

Technically there ARE more than two candidates. The Libertarians almost always have one and there are others. It is just only one of the two parties actually win. It could work over time. It would be better with some kind of ranked or weighted voting system as you might have people vote 3rd party for their first pick and one of the big two for the second. If one of the 3rd parties gets a decent number in the first election it could snowball. More people would understand how ranked voting works and one of the parties would look viable enough to put your first vote into.

 

[David T]

The US famously really only has two parties that matter the most in politics, and that’s the Democrats and Republicans. But in the last 4 years or so, we’ve really seen diverging ideas within those political parties. Many of these ideologies would have their own parties if they weren’t part in the US’ two party system. Because of the 270-to-win requirement in the electoral college, obviously the US has consolidated parties - as having the House decide is an ordeal.

But something a few countries use, such as France and Brazil, is a presidential runoff. It’s triggered if no one gets a majority of the vote. Could that be a possibility in the electoral college, where not reaching 270 would lead to a runoff instead of a house vote? Additionally, would that lead to stronger “third parties” in the United States?

If the US were to adopt a runoff system, it would abolish the Electoral College. Combining the two makes no sense and has no backing of which I am aware. That's why I'm puzzled by your reference to France and Brazil--they have runoffs, of course, but no Electoral College. (To have a runoff in the Electoral College with no new popular vote would violate the idea that electors are not to use their own judgment.)

 

[Kendall Hart]

If the US were to adopt a runoff system, it would abolish the Electoral College. Combining the two makes no sense and has no backing of which I am aware. That's why I'm puzzled by your reference to France and Brazil--they have runoffs, of course, but no Electoral College. (To have a runoff in the Electoral College with no new popular vote would violate the idea that electors are not to use their own judgment.)

I don’t know if this is necessarily true. True - France and Brazil have national popular votes. But that doesn’t mean they are incompatible with the electoral college. Basically this would just replace the House vote with another election with only two candidates. Yeah two candidates could have 269 each but that’s a minor thing that could be fixed.

 

[David T]

I don’t know if this is necessarily true. True - France and Brazil have national popular votes. But that doesn’t mean they are incompatible with the electoral college. Basically this would just replace the House vote with another election with only two candidates. Yeah two candidates could have 269 each but that’s a minor thing that could be fixed.

This looks like the solution to a completely nonexistent problem. Nobody has failed to get a majority of electors since 1824. If the objection to the present system is that it discourages third parties, and if enough people came indeed to regard that as a bug rather than a feature, what they would propose--indeed, many have proposed--to remedy it is popular election with an instant runoff.. There seems nobody at all interested in two Electoral College elections in a row.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

This is all fairly confusing.

Countries that elect their chief executive currently almost always do so by nationwide popular vote, with a majority requirement, and a run-off (or alternative voting) if no candidate wins a majority in the first round. Using the nationwide popular vote without a runoff (meaning, using plurality voting), is rare, I think as of 2020 only one country did that. When used, electoral colleges are based on the legislatures, often assemblies of regional legislatures, and there is no attempt made to consult the electorate.

The American electoral college system is really sui generis. To be fair to the Americans, in 1787, only two important countries, Poland and the Netherlands, elected their heads of state, so the Americans didn't have much to go by. Both the Polish and the Dutch systems were political disasters that expired before the 12th Amendment.

So I will interpret the question as to whether the Americans could have gotten the Electoral College and some sort of run-off, without just adopting a nationwide popular vote with a runoff like most 20th century republics. There are two ways to do this, both possible.

The first would have been for the 1787 constitution, or the 12th Amendment, to provide that no candidate got an Electoral College majority, the electoral college itself would vote among the top two. I'm not even sure how this would have worked under the weird original system where each elector got two votes, and the top two vote getters would be the President and the Vice President, but then factions ran tickets for the two offices, so in one election the losing Presidential candidate became Vice President instead of the running mate of the winning faction, and in the second case the winning faction had both their candidates tied. Under the 12th Amendment, this would have been doable. It would have changed potentially the election of 1824,the only time no candidate got an Electoral College majority, if the Crawford electors had voted for Jackson. But its hard to see this happening with the Electors not assembling as a body, but voting at their state capitals, sometimes using the secret ballot.

A second method would be for the states to provide that their electors be chosen by votes of the electorates -this is purely a matter of state law- and that furthermore if no candidate within the state got a majority of the state vote, there would be a runoff of the top two candidates later. I don't think this is what the OP is asking for. No state has done this, and it has not to my knowledge been seriously considered. Given how these things work out, once a certain amount of states did this, all but a couple of the states would do this. It would lead to interesting elections after the main elections. Some states do provide a majoritarian requirement for their statewide elected officials, but only a minority do this.