How to fix the Electoral College

On November 5, the United States will hold its presidential election, and, as usual, criticism of the Electoral College is a prominent topic of discussion.

The idea behind this complex system is to prevent larger, more populous states from overpowering smaller ones. However, electoral campaigns have increasingly become more of a race to win the so-called “Swing States” rather than a means of gaining support across the entire country. In effect, this system creates “first-class” citizens in swing states, where the majority of campaign funds and efforts are directed, and “second-class” citizens who live in states where the outcome is nearly guaranteed and thus are almost ignored during the campaign.

The problem

The reason behind this issue lies in the use of a “winner-take-all” system for appointing electors in most of the states¹: if a candidate wins the majority of votes in a state, they receive all of that state’s electors.

This means that votes for the “losing” candidates in each state are effectively disregarded. The problem is especially clear in the so-called Red and Blue states. Texas is a Red state, California a Blue state. A Democrat voting in Texas or a Republican voting in California may feel that their vote is essentially irrelevant, leading to long-term disillusionment with the political process.

An alternative

An alternative approach might involve appointing electors proportionally, using the D’Hondt method, also known as the Jefferson method. This system could assign electors in a way that more accurately reflects each candidate’s share of votes in a state. Yet, the main drawback of a proportional system is that it often leads to a proliferation of parties, which means no candidate may win a majority of electors in the first round.

Among proportional systems, D’Hondt’s method is the one that minimizes this risk the most². Still, the possibility of no candidate achieving a majority is still far from being remote. To address this, the simplest solution would be to hold a runoff between the top two candidates (most likely Democrat and Republican) if nobody wins a majority of electors nationwide in the first round. In this runoff, electors would again be appointed proportionally, using the same method as in the first round.

One question is how early voting could work under a two-round system. The easiest way would be ranked-choice voting, which would eliminate the need for a second round. In this system, voters would rank the candidates by preference. Then, electors would be appointed proportionally using the D’Hondt method according to the first choices. If no candidate achieved a majority of electors nationwide, the candidate with the fewest votes would be eliminated, and votes for that candidate would be transferred to the other candidates according to voters’ second choices. This process would continue until one candidate secures a majority of electors nationwide.

Example

Now let’s look at an example. Connecticut has 7 electors. Suppose that four candidates receive the following votes:

Using D’Hondt’s method, electors would be appointed as follows:

If this approach had been applied in the 2020 presidential election, Biden would have received 36 out of California’s 55 electors, while Trump would have received 19. In Texas, Biden would have received 18 electors and Trump 21, out of a total of 38.