How should the US President get elected?

[Tribble]

As you all know I was originally proposing a duel in the coliseum over the US electoral College. A few things got in the way, namely:

A) I was a total wuss and chickened out last minute
B) I feel that comparing one option vs another limits the debate too much
C) Having more than 2 options is difficult to work with for a formal debate and
D) Kinda swamped with midterms (and getting sick of being a professional student), so I can't pay as much attention to a full on coliseum debate as I would like to


For those who aren't familiar with how the US presidential election worked, here it is in a nutshell:

Voters don't directly vote for president. Instead, each state is given a number of electors whom vote for the president later on.
While there is currently a legal challenge as to whether or not the elector may vote independently, the status quo is that the elector will vote for the pledged delegate.
The number of electors is one for each senator, plus one for each house representative (which means that each state is guaranteed at least 3 electors).
Most states have a "winner take all" system, so that the candidate which won the most votes would gain all of that state's electors.
In this election there were 538 electors, so that 270 were required for an outright win (Trump won 306).
In the event that there is no majority, the House gets to elect the President while the Senate elects the V.P.


Given the recent US election I'd really to hear what people think about the current setup, and what can/should be changed. While at first I was all in favour of the "abolish and make proportional nationwide" side, after reading more about it I'm not quite so certain that's the best option. Here is my (brief) assessment so far:

Status Quo:

Pros:
Smaller states are not completely overwhelmed by the larger states. This was probably a key feature that got the states to sign on in the first place, similar to the "Great Compromise" with the House and the Senate.
With "winner take all" candidates are forced to travel more than they would otherwise, lest a state flip and they lose all of the seats.


Cons:
The winning candidate does not need to win the popular vote.
Most elections are decided by "swing states," and candidates only focus attention on them (though how much of this is due to the system itself vs voter preferences is unclear)



Electors voting for the president independently
This was the original system that was put in place.

Pros:

Electoral College preserved (which may be a key issue for smaller states as they may not wish to be swamped by larger ones)
The average voter may not have the knowledge/experiences to judge a presidential candidate effectively. It might be better to voters to elect whom they feel is best qualified instead (kind of like picking the smartest person in the class to do all the work)
Independent electors may not be as influenced as heavily by political / media campaigning, and may make more effective choices (or are at least less likely to vote in demagogues)
Possible chance for a third party / independent candidate to win the election


Cons:
Not proportionate
Less democratic
No guarantee electors will choose better
Electors may be susceptible to political horse-trading / lobbying


State-wide Popular Vote

Pros:
Electoral College is preserved, so that smaller states are not completely swamped by larger ones.
Proportionate when compared to "winner take all" and "independent elector"
Candidates will have to appeal across the country, and cannot focus solely on "swing states"
Possible greater chance of a third party / independent candidate winning as they cannot be "locked out" of particular states

Cons:
Not fully proportionate, and it's still possible to win without having the popular vote (though less so than "winner take all" or "independent elector")
May lead to more presidential candidates being elected via the House / Senate (due to no candidate having 50 % + 1 electors) unless that part of the election process is reworked as well (i.e. the winning candidate simply needs the most electors)


Nationwide Popular Vote

Pros:
Fully proportionate- larger states' voters will have equal power to smaller state voters
Winner must have the popular vote across the country
Possible greater chance of a third party / independent candidate winning as they cannot be "locked out" of particular states
May reduce some of the "state-divide" over time as candidates will be appealing towards everyone rather than picking states

Cons:
Biggest states may make smaller states largely irrelevant for electoral purposes, which goes against the original compromise given to smaller states.
Smaller states may resent being mostly irrelevant for election purposes.
May lead to more presidential candidates being elected via the House / Senate (due to no candidate having 50 % + 1 vote) unless that part of the election process is reworked as well (i.e. the winning candidate simply needs the most votes)

I am trying to avoid this being a "Republican vs Democrat" topic as much as possible, although certain methods certainly favour one party over the other at the moment. The things is that this can be subject to change as well over time, which is why I think this issue goes beyond mere party politics.


What are your thoughts? Which one do you feel best, and why? Is there something about the current systems that I have missed? Are there better options that I have not considered?

[The Romulan Republic]

Nationwide popular vote.

If you believe in democratic elections, and in equal representation, and in their being a United States of America, it is simply the only logical and ethical option.

[Gandalf]

In Australia, the country is broken up into electorates, which are all approximately equal in population size (About 150k in Aus). To adapt the system for the US, one could theoretically break up the US into a number of electorates, eliminate the electors entirely, and just have a majority vote in each electorate. Introduce preferential voting to make sure that someone beats fifty percent, and it should be good. Most electorates won wins the big chair.

At the same time, federalise the election to create standardised voting systems.

[The Romulan Republic]

One word why that's a bad idea:

Gerrymandering.

The Republicans would gleefully redraw those electorates to ensure that as many as possible had a Republican majority.

[Gandalf]

One word why that's a bad idea:

Gerrymandering.

The Republicans would gleefully redraw those electorates to ensure that as many as possible had a Republican majority.

Presumably if someone is introducing a set of changes on the scale I've mentioned, it should be easy to put an equation in the new laws that keeps all districts at certain area:border ratios, and similar. With some independent oversight, in the style of the Australian Electoral Commission, that should minimise and prevent gerrymandering on that scale.

[Tribble]

Nationwide popular vote.

If you believe in democratic elections, and in equal representation, and in their being a United States of America, it is simply the only logical and ethical option.

Playing devil's advocate here.

"Equal Representation" can take different forms. The USA is a federal republic, and state representation can be viewed as just as important. It's the United States of America after all, not the United States of New York, California, Florida and Texas.

Just for the record, this comes from someone who lives in the largest city and province in his country by a wide margin (Toronto, Ontario) who has benefitted greatly from it being the politically / economically dominant area for the most part ... and who has also seen the resentment that can cause throughout the rest of the country.

[Lord Revan]

What I'd do is change electors into static "votes" or "points" to remove the chance of "unfaithful" electors and also change the distribution of those "votes" from absolute to relative aka a candidate that got 2/3s of the states votes in the popular vote would only get the 2/3s of the votes from state not all as it's in the current system.

As it's stated US is a Federal republic and as such cannot function properly if certain low population states feel like they're being ignored intentionally at the federal level.

[aerius]

Other, we do it by random draw. All the eligible names go into a hat and we draw the winner out of it like we do in lotteries.

Cons
Unconstitutional, the Constitution will need some new Amendments
Giant fuck you to voters, but most people are too dumb to vote anyway so no big loss
You might get a giant douchebag as your leader, but you've already elected one anyway so it's not really a con

Pros
No more election campaigns
You might get an awesome leader who is unelectable under the current system

[Flagg]

Just get rid of the electoral college. Then you have no more swing states, the candidates have to campaign throughout the entire country and 1 vote doesn't become worth hundreds of thousands because of the way electors are assigned (2 for the senators and one for each representative). That way our democracy is actually democratic.

[aerius]

Just get rid of the electoral college. Then you have no more swing states, the candidates have to campaign throughout the entire country and 1 vote doesn't become worth hundreds of thousands because of the way electors are assigned (2 for the senators and one for each representative).

Have you looked at a population density map of your country lately?

[Flagg]

Just get rid of the electoral college. Then you have no more swing states, the candidates have to campaign throughout the entire country and 1 vote doesn't become worth hundreds of thousands because of the way electors are assigned (2 for the senators and one for each representative).

Have you looked at a population density map of your country lately?

Yeah, it's mostly on the coasts. But aside from not having 8 billion rallies in 5 states with average population, they will need to spread out more and go to states they never do. Like Texas and California. The other thing ditching the EC will do is make republican votes in democratic states and democratic votes in republican states actually matter, as opposed to them not counting at all with our current system.

[Solauren]

Switch to the way we in Canada do it, but Americanize it.

Link the Presidency to Congressional elections. The head of the party that controls the senate is automatically President of the United States.

[Tribble]

What I'd do is change electors into static "votes" or "points" to remove the chance of "unfaithful" electors and also change the distribution of those "votes" from absolute to relative aka a candidate that got 2/3s of the states votes in the popular vote would only get the 2/3s of the votes from state not all as it's in the current system.

As it's stated US is a Federal republic and as such cannot function properly if certain low population states feel like they're being ignored intentionally at the federal level.

So unless I am mistaken, that would more or less be a state-wide popular vote, just minus the electors?

Other, we do it by random draw. All the eligible names go into a hat and we draw the winner out of it like we do in lotteries.

Cons
Unconstitutional, the Constitution will need some new Amendments
Giant fuck you to voters, but most people are too dumb to vote anyway so no big loss
You might get a giant douchebag as your leader, but you've already elected one anyway so it's not really a con

Pros
No more election campaigns
You might get an awesome leader who is unelectable under the current system

Funnily enough IIRC there is precedent for that, as some of the Roman offices were decided by lottery.

The other thing ditching the EC will do is make republican votes in democratic states and democratic votes in republican states actually matter, as opposed to them not counting at all with our current system.

Not necessarily, a statewide proportionate vote would accomplish much the same thing in that regard.

Switch to the way we in Canada do it, but Americanize it.

Link the Presidency to Congressional elections. The head of the party that controls the senate is automatically President of the United States.

Which would have the effect of essentially combining the executive / legislature, which would mean the checks and balances would solely consist of the legislature/executive vs the courts. Do you think that would work out well for the US?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I see zero compelling reason why the election should not be determined by a nationwide popular vote. As it stands right now, a voter in california is less powerful than a voter in Wyoming. Moreover, the minority-party in each state might as well not exist. A democrat in Texas or a republican in MA has zero influence on the election results.

In the modern world, there is no justification for that (come at me bro).

[Flagg]

What I'd do is change electors into static "votes" or "points" to remove the chance of "unfaithful" electors and also change the distribution of those "votes" from absolute to relative aka a candidate that got 2/3s of the states votes in the popular vote would only get the 2/3s of the votes from state not all as it's in the current system.

As it's stated US is a Federal republic and as such cannot function properly if certain low population states feel like they're being ignored intentionally at the federal level.

So unless I am mistaken, that would more or less be a state-wide popular vote, just minus the electors?

Other, we do it by random draw. All the eligible names go into a hat and we draw the winner out of it like we do in lotteries.

Cons
Unconstitutional, the Constitution will need some new Amendments
Giant fuck you to voters, but most people are too dumb to vote anyway so no big loss
You might get a giant douchebag as your leader, but you've already elected one anyway so it's not really a con

Pros
No more election campaigns
You might get an awesome leader who is unelectable under the current system

Funnily enough IIRC there is precedent for that, as some of the Roman offices were decided by lottery.

The other thing ditching the EC will do is make republican votes in democratic states and democratic votes in republican states actually matter, as opposed to them not counting at all with our current system.

Not necessarily, a statewide proportionate vote would accomplish much the same thing in that regard.

Switch to the way we in Canada do it, but Americanize it.

Link the Presidency to Congressional elections. The head of the party that controls the senate is automatically President of the United States.

Which would have the effect of essentially combining the executive / legislature, which would mean the checks and balances would solely consist of the legislature/executive vs the courts. Do you think that would work out well for the US?

A statewide proportional vote would just disenfranchise less voters, not all. Either every vote counts or we may as well stick with the EC.

[Titan Uranus]

I voted other, my favored system would be state-based proportional representation with two electors per state going to the popular vote winner in that state.

The problem with nationwide popular vote is that it results in all the attention and pandering being focused on the top 25 cities in the nation while all the smaller cities, towns, and rural areas are ignored, and you will find that laws will be passed to favor the interests of the top 25 cities over the rest of the county.

[Flagg]

I voted other, my favored system would be state-based proportional representation with two electors per state going to the popular vote winner in that state.

The problem with nationwide popular vote is that it results in all the attention and pandering being focused on the top 25 cities in the nation while all the smaller cities, towns, and rural areas are ignored, and you will find that laws will be passed to favor the interests of the top 25 cities over the rest of the county.

You mean where everyone lives? Why not just add cows and ears of corn while doing the census?

And really, why does it matter where a candidate goes? We have this thing called a Television that can beam live images into our homes so we don't need to go to packed rallies yet still get to hear the stump speeches.

[Titan Uranus]

I voted other, my favored system would be state-based proportional representation with two electors per state going to the popular vote winner in that state.

The problem with nationwide popular vote is that it results in all the attention and pandering being focused on the top 25 cities in the nation while all the smaller cities, towns, and rural areas are ignored, and you will find that laws will be passed to favor the interests of the top 25 cities over the rest of the county.

You mean where everyone lives? Why not just add cows and ears of corn while doing the census?

And really, why does it matter where a candidate goes? We have this thing called a Television that can beam live images into our homes so we don't need to go to packed rallies yet still get to hear the stump speeches.

The majority of the US population does not live in the top 25 cities.
Why do you think ethanol subsidies exist?

[mr friendly guy]

One word why that's a bad idea:

Gerrymandering.

The Republicans would gleefully redraw those electorates to ensure that as many as possible had a Republican majority.

The electorates in Australia are decided by an independent source. To give an example of this, former Prime Minister John Howard's electorate was redrawn for the 2007 election campaign, which put a safe Liberal seat in doubt as the new borders included people who were not such big LNP fanboys. As a result of this and good campaigning by the opposition, he lost his seat. Howard's party was running the country at the time of redrawing the borders to give you an idea of the independence of the electoral commission.

[Tribble]

Plus, rural areas also happen to be the places where America extracts most of its natural resources and grows most of its food... so ya, I think it is kind of important that rural concerns aren't completely ignored and drowned out by urban populations.

And really, why does it matter where a candidate goes? We have this thing called a Television that can beam live images into our homes so we don't need to go to packed rallies yet still get to hear the stump speeches.

In theory I agree, it shouldn't. In practice Americans (and most democracies) do tend to like it when their candidates pay direct attention to them by visiting in person. TV / Skype speeches just isn't the same for a lot of people (though Millennials might not care so much).

[Flagg]

I voted other, my favored system would be state-based proportional representation with two electors per state going to the popular vote winner in that state.

The problem with nationwide popular vote is that it results in all the attention and pandering being focused on the top 25 cities in the nation while all the smaller cities, towns, and rural areas are ignored, and you will find that laws will be passed to favor the interests of the top 25 cities over the rest of the county.

You mean where everyone lives? Why not just add cows and ears of corn while doing the census?

And really, why does it matter where a candidate goes? We have this thing called a Television that can beam live images into our homes so we don't need to go to packed rallies yet still get to hear the stump speeches.

The majority of the US population does not live in the top 25 cities.
Why do you think ethanol subsidies exist?

We have ethanol subsidies because of the farm lobby. And the majority of Americans live on the coasts, where most of those cities are. Why do you hate democracy? I mean you cry "tyranny" over the person getting the most votes being the winner when it's exactly the opposite. Why should a vote from Wyoming count more than one from California?

[Flagg]

Plus, rural areas also happen to be the places where America extracts most of its natural resources and grows most of its food... so ya, I think it is kind of important that rural concerns aren't completely ignored and drowned out by urban populations.

Aside from ridiculous subsidies, I don't envision rural concerns being ignored since rural area are where urban areas get their food.

And really, why does it matter where a candidate goes? We have this thing called a Television that can beam live images into our homes so we don't need to go to packed rallies yet still get to hear the stump speeches.

In theory I agree, it shouldn't. In practice Americans (and most democracies) do tend to like it when their candidates pay direct attention to them by visiting in person. TV / Skype speeches just isn't the same for a lot of people (though Millennials might not care so much).

I went to a Gore rally in Orlando in 2000. I almost got heat stroke. And the candidates focus all of their energy on the swing states, so all it would really do is free them up to visit more places.

[The Romulan Republic]

One word why that's a bad idea:

Gerrymandering.

The Republicans would gleefully redraw those electorates to ensure that as many as possible had a Republican majority.

The electorates in Australia are decided by an independent source. To give an example of this, former Prime Minister John Howard's electorate was redrawn for the 2007 election campaign, which put a safe Liberal seat in doubt as the new borders included people who were not such big LNP fanboys. As a result of this and good campaigning by the opposition, he lost his seat. Howard's party was running the country at the time of redrawing the borders to give you an idea of the independence of the electoral commission.

Well, that's something, I suppose, but still it seems needlessly complicated, compared to a straightforward popular vote (with perhaps a runoff if no one gets a majority).

[Civil War Man]

The majority of the US population does not live in the top 25 cities.

If the majority of the US population does not live in the top 25 cities, then why would presidential candidates focus on those 25 cities if we went by national popular vote?

I looked it up. Based on census estimates, the 25 most populous cities in the country combined have a bit over 37 million people in them. Going by an estimated US population of just under 319 million, that comes out to about 11.7% of the total US population lives in the 25 biggest cities.

If you seriously try to win a national popular vote by courting a small minority of the population to the exclusion of everyone else, then I think you have not thought your brilliant plan all the way through.

[Flagg]

The majority of the US population does not live in the top 25 cities.

If the majority of the US population does not live in the top 25 cities, then why would presidential candidates focus on those 25 cities if we went by national popular vote?

I looked it up. Based on census estimates, the 25 most populous cities in the country combined have a bit over 37 million people in them. Going by an estimated US population of just under 319 million, that comes out to about 11.7% of the total US population lives in the 25 biggest cities.

If you seriously try to win a national popular vote by courting a small minority of the population to the exclusion of everyone else, then I think you have not thought your brilliant plan all the way through.

That's why I just can't wrap my head around people wanting to keep the EC or some kind of it that still disenfranchises people but to a lesser degree.