Hybrid electoral college

What if the Constitution were amended such that the electoral college votes would be asigned as such:

- Each state would have EVs equal to the current formula, assigned as their state government sees fit.
- The nation as a whole would have an additional allotment of EVs equal to the states' EVs, which would be proportionally assigned based on the national popular vote.
- The two groups are pooled together to determine the winner.

So, in our current situation, you'd have the 538 current EVs, and an additional 538 EVs based on the national vote.
 
There would still be some incentive to juice turnout in deeply red and deeply blue areas, but not as much.

I like it. It covers some of the defects of both the electoral college and the national popular vote systems.
 
There would still be some incentive to juice turnout in deeply red and deeply blue areas, but not as much.

On a local level, yes. But on a state level, the college incentivises focus on swing areas. The GOP doesnt need to worry about Texas, the dems, california.
 
On a local level, yes. But on a state level, the college incentivises focus on swing areas. The GOP doesnt need to worry about Texas, the dems, california.

The half of the electoral college that is NPV means the GOP does need to gin up the vote in Texas and the Dems do need to do it in California. It's just that the incentive is halved.
 
1) Hybrid Electoral College - you need to prove Neanderthal genes to vote.:p

2) Why, oh why would anyone do this? The whole POINT of the Electoral College is a) distancing the mob from the presidency and b) giving power to States. If you think these goals are silly today, you'd abolish the EC. If you don't, you keep it. Going to the effort to get a Constitutional Amendment through to NOT fix the problem? Not going to happen.
 

Jasen777

Donor
To me this still maintains much of the problems with the EC, but takes away what is its one benefit: that if there's a close election you only have to recount one state instead of the whole country. Although thinking about, the popular vote winner should generally win, even more than now. It wouldn't have helped Gore*, though he would have insisted on a nation wide recount, so who knows?

* - well maybe depending on if you do thresholds for the popular vote EV's.
 
I've worked out what the results for the last six elections would've been, using the good old D'Hondt system for the popular-vote EVs. In each of these cases I've assumed that any faithless electors vote the way they were supposed to.

2012
Barack Obama (Democrat) – 51.1% – 608 EVs (332 + 276)
Mitt Romney (Republican) – 47.2% – 462 EVs (206 + 256)
Gary Johnson (Libertarian) – 0.99% – 5 EVs
Jill Stein (Green) – 0.36% – 1 EV

2008
Barack Obama (Democrat) – 52.93% – 651 EVs (365 + 286)
John McCain (Republican) – 45.65% – 420 EVs (173 + 247)
Ralph Nader (Independent) – 0.56% – 3 EVs
Bob Barr (Libertarian) – 0.40% – 2 EVs

2004
George W Bush (Republican) – 50.73% – 560 EVs (286 + 274)
John Kerry (Democrat) – 48.27% – 513 EVs (252 + 261)
Ralph Nader (Independent) – 0.38% – 2 EVs
Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) – 0.32% – 1 EV

2000
George W Bush (Republican) – 47.87% – 530 EVs (271 + 259)
Al Gore (Democratic) – 48.38% – 528 EVs (267 + 261)
Ralph Nader (Green) – 2.74% – 15 EVs
Pat Buchanan (Reform) – 0.43% – 2 EVs
Harry Browne (Libertarian) – 1 EV

1996
Bill Clinton (Democratic) – 49.24% – 646 EVs (379 + 267)
Bob Dole (Republican) – 40.71% – 380 EVs (159 + 221)
Ross Perot (Reform) – 8.40% – 45 EVs
Ralph Nader (Green) – 0.71% – 3 EVs
Harry Browne (Libertarian) – 0.50% – 2 EVs

1992
Bill Clinton (Democratic) – 43.01% – 603 EVs (370 + 233)
George Bush (Republican) – 37.45% – 370 EVs (168 + 202)
Ross Perot (Independent) – 18.91% – 102 EVs
Andre Verne Marrou (Libertarian) – 0.28% – 1 EV

As you can see, the only one where it'd change the result is 2000, which is now a hung electoral college. If all the electors vote as they're supposed to, then the election will be thrown to Congress and George W Bush will be appointed President by the Republican-controlled House (the Vice-President is a trickier matter, as the Senate was split 50-50 and the Twelfth Amendment is ambiguous as to whether the sitting vice-president can break the tie in this case – but if he can, Joe Lieberman becomes Vice-President). On the other hand, it's plausible that Ralph Nader may release nine of his electors to vote for Gore instead.
 
On the other hand, it's plausible that Ralph Nader may release nine of his electors to vote for Gore instead.

Which surely he'd have done if he had any sense and control over the matter, once the votes were already tallied.

Anyway, I like it, but I don't think it could be done, because it would be overly complicated for the public. It would be better to just switch to a wholly proportional system in one fell swoop; going half-and-half would be too confusing, I think.
 
I guess the real question here is when this new system is introduced. After all, a constitutional amendment like this would take decades to get ratified.

Let's assume it goes through some time in the 1910s, around the time that senators became directly elected. Now, all the elections where the winner got a popular-vote majority are clear-cut – there'd be no change there. So I checked out the ones where no one got an absolute majority:

1948 (532 EVs to win)
Harry S Truman (Democratic) – 49.55% – 567 EVs (303 + 264)
Thomas Dewey (Republican) – 45.07% – 430 EVs (189 + 241)
Strom Thurmond (States' Rights Democratic) – 2.41% – 51 EVs (39 + 12)
Henry A Wallace (Progressive) – 2.37% – 12 EVs
Norman Thomas (Socialist) – 0.29% – 1 EV
Claude A Watson (Prohibition) – 0.21% – 1 EV
RESULT: Truman victory (no change)

1960 (538 EVs to win)
John F Kennedy (Democratic) – 49.72% – 570 EVs (303 + 267)
Richard Nixon (Republican) – 49.55% – 486 EVs (220 + 266)
Harry F Byrd (via unpledged Democratic electors) – 0.89% – 18 EVs (14 + 4)
RESULT: Kennedy victory (no change)

1968 (539 EVs to win)
Richard Nixon (Republican) – 43.42% – 535 EVs (301 + 234)
Hubert H Humphrey (Democratic) – 42.72% – 422 EVs (191 + 231)
George Wallace (American Independent) – 13.53% – 119 EVs (46 + 73)
RESULT: Hung electoral college
 

jahenders

Banned
In general, I think the current system is OK, but does have some flaws. My preferred fix would be for all states to do proportional allotment of EVs.

However, your hybrid fix would definitely quell many critics and would be far better than just eliminating the EC.

What if the Constitution were amended such that the electoral college votes would be asigned as such:

- Each state would have EVs equal to the current formula, assigned as their state government sees fit.
- The nation as a whole would have an additional allotment of EVs equal to the states' EVs, which would be proportionally assigned based on the national popular vote.
- The two groups are pooled together to determine the winner.

So, in our current situation, you'd have the 538 current EVs, and an additional 538 EVs based on the national vote.
 
Which surely he'd have done if he had any sense and control over the matter, once the votes were already tallied.

Why? Nader wanted Bush to win. He even said so himself:

"If California tips Green enough, Bush could win the state and the whole damn election.

"Which, Nader confided to Outside in June, wouldn't be so bad. When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: 'Bush.' Not that he actually thinks the man he calls 'Bush Inc.' deserves to be elected: 'He'll do whatever industry wants done.' The rumpled crusader clearly prefers to sink his righteous teeth into Al Gore, however: 'He's totally betrayed his 1992 book,' Nader says. 'It's all rhetoric.' Gore 'groveled openly' to automakers, charges Nader, who concludes with the sotto voce realpolitik of a ward heeler: 'If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win.'"

https://web.archive.org/web/2007081...utside/magazine/200008/200008camp_nader1.html
 
Of course the campaigns would be run differently if everyone knew the popular vote counted for half, especially in the later elections. Cant just look at the OTL popular vote and state winners and assume the same results would obtain.
 
An interesting idea, but I'm with Dathi. The intent of the Electoral College is NOT to have the US President elected by direct popular vote...or to have the popular vote even matter. This is a very complicated compromise solution that really doesn't change all that much in terms of actual outcomes...except the increased likelihood of hung electoral colleges, which I think we should avoid at all costs. Either keep the system as intended by the Founders or eliminate the Electoral College altogether and use a nationwide popular vote to select the president...with the candidate receiving the most votes being elected regardless of whether or not its a true majority.
 
Top