US Presidential elections from 2000 on under the Approval Vote

Given that presidential electors are elected state-by-state, what would happen if presidential candidates were elected by the Approval Vote, rather than first-past-the-post?
 
Still pretty confused...

I know what an "approval ballot" in general is.

However saying OP "given that presidential electors are elected state-by-state" implies that the Electoral College still exists--ie, there is no change in US electoral law other than an implicit mandate on all states that they use an approval ballot for the Presidential race. Otherwise, there are no amendments and no changes in individual state laws.

In the US Constitution the individual states determine by their own laws how electors are chosen. Obviously some conditions have subsequently been placed on states' freedom of action in this since! Thus a law mandating approval ballots has the same status as whatever requires states to make their choices of electors contingent on general elections at all. But under these rules, individual states still have a choice as to whether to grant whoever wins the state as a whole all its electoral votes in a bloc, or to apportion them proportionately. A few states do the latter today.

In a winner-take all state (the majority of them by far) the main effect of approval balloting would be to undercut the relevance of primaries. If primaries are not simply abolished outright, still, the losers in the big dominant parties can still run in their own right, creating ad-hoc "parties" for the purpose, much as Joe Lieberman did when he was primaried out by Lamont in 2006. So in 2000 for instance, I might have found not only Al Gore but many other Democrats who would have considered running that year on my ballot in California; Republicans would almost surely have had both Bush and McCain on theirs (particularly in California!) and who knows who else. OTL, as a California voter in 2000, one who despised the Republicans en masse but also had issues with Democrats who IMHO had caved in too much to their Disloyal Opposition, I chose to support Nader, in the sure knowledge that Gore would still win CA and all its electoral votes without my help. ITTL, I could vote for all the Democrats (at least those I viewed as sufficiently better than the Republicans) and Nader, and probably a whole slew of yet more obscure leftists as well. I guess I'd have cast something between 5-10 approval votes.

I'm pretty confident that out of that, some big-name Democrat or other would emerge with the largest number, and get all of California's EVs.

However, while across the country I imagine more EVs would go to some Democrat or other than any Republican, it might be a different Democrat in different states. We'd probably wind up with something similar happening on the Republican side, and no one having anything close to a majority in the EC, and this election--and just about every subsequent one--being thrown to the House for decision.

Meanwhile, in the handful of states that assign electoral votes proportionately, how would they do it fairly? One method would be to assign a proportion based on total approval votes divided by total number of voters voting, then strike out all votes that included this winner, see who is left with the most after that, assign more EVs in proportion, and so on until the last EV is assigned. This strikes me as tending to inflate the victory of whoever comes out ahead and give a false impression of the weakness of anyone following. Which by the way is what the Electoral College in general does.

This elaborate system would also tend to create yet more confusion in the EC, even so.

De facto, we have thus at great expense and much national ill-will, abolished the EC in practice, and made the Presidency de facto a parliamentary Prime Ministry of Congress.

A straight national approval ballot with no Electoral College strikes me as the only sane and straightforward way to apply Approval Voting to the Presidency.
 
I know what an "approval ballot" in general is.

However saying OP "given that presidential electors are elected state-by-state" implies that the Electoral College still exists--ie, there is no change in US electoral law other than an implicit mandate on all states that they use an approval ballot for the Presidential race. Otherwise, there are no amendments and no changes in individual state laws.

In the US Constitution the individual states determine by their own laws how electors are chosen. Obviously some conditions have subsequently been placed on states' freedom of action in this since! Thus a law mandating approval ballots has the same status as whatever requires states to make their choices of electors contingent on general elections at all. But under these rules, individual states still have a choice as to whether to grant whoever wins the state as a whole all its electoral votes in a bloc, or to apportion them proportionately. A few states do the latter today.

In a winner-take all state (the majority of them by far) the main effect of approval balloting would be to undercut the relevance of primaries. If primaries are not simply abolished outright, still, the losers in the big dominant parties can still run in their own right, creating ad-hoc "parties" for the purpose, much as Joe Lieberman did when he was primaried out by Lamont in 2006. So in 2000 for instance, I might have found not only Al Gore but many other Democrats who would have considered running that year on my ballot in California; Republicans would almost surely have had both Bush and McCain on theirs (particularly in California!) and who knows who else. OTL, as a California voter in 2000, one who despised the Republicans en masse but also had issues with Democrats who IMHO had caved in too much to their Disloyal Opposition, I chose to support Nader, in the sure knowledge that Gore would still win CA and all its electoral votes without my help. ITTL, I could vote for all the Democrats (at least those I viewed as sufficiently better than the Republicans) and Nader, and probably a whole slew of yet more obscure leftists as well. I guess I'd have cast something between 5-10 approval votes.

I'm pretty confident that out of that, some big-name Democrat or other would emerge with the largest number, and get all of California's EVs.

However, while across the country I imagine more EVs would go to some Democrat or other than any Republican, it might be a different Democrat in different states. We'd probably wind up with something similar happening on the Republican side, and no one having anything close to a majority in the EC, and this election--and just about every subsequent one--being thrown to the House for decision.

Meanwhile, in the handful of states that assign electoral votes proportionately, how would they do it fairly? One method would be to assign a proportion based on total approval votes divided by total number of voters voting, then strike out all votes that included this winner, see who is left with the most after that, assign more EVs in proportion, and so on until the last EV is assigned. This strikes me as tending to inflate the victory of whoever comes out ahead and give a false impression of the weakness of anyone following. Which by the way is what the Electoral College in general does.

This elaborate system would also tend to create yet more confusion in the EC, even so.

De facto, we have thus at great expense and much national ill-will, abolished the EC in practice, and made the Presidency de facto a parliamentary Prime Ministry of Congress.

A straight national approval ballot with no Electoral College strikes me as the only sane and straightforward way to apply Approval Voting to the Presidency.

First of all, the handful of states (ME and NE) that are not winner-takes-all do not allocate proportionately, but are allocated to each district, with two at-large electoral votes for the state-wide election.

Second, the electors are able to change their votes between the General Election and the convening of the Electoral College; indeed, this would lead to a situation similar to the national conventions of the two major parties. Faithless electors would be more of the norm rather than a fluke. This, however would lead to conflict with the popular vote within each state.

Third, I agree that a nation-wide vote using the approval method is more sane than a FPTP-elected EC. However, that would require a constitutional amendment.
 
If candidates fail to get a majority in the Electoral College, it would weaken the presidency considerably; I would go so far as to say the President of the United States would be a figurehead, and Congress would control the cabinet, maybe appointing a Secretary-General as head of government.
 
Top