Vote For Your True #1: Presidential Election Reform

Regardless of what one might feel about how much power a president should or should not wield, it is no understatement to say that the President of the United States is the most powerful individual in our country, if not on the whole earth. It’s no surprise that in presidential election years voter turnout far exceeds turnout in midterm election years. Yet too many Americans arrive at Election Day feeling they have no real choice. Many feel pressured to vote for the “lesser of two evils.” Others are not voting for someone; they are voting against someone.

Why the Current System Falls Short

A large group of citizens in our country who claim that the electoral college is unfair because it is undemocratic believe the president should be the winner of the national popular vote. However, whether they know it consciously or not, what they are actually arguing for is,

“The path to winning the presidency should be winning the undemocratic Democratic primary.”

These citizens completely disregard the undemocratic nature of our primary system, and the structural demotivation for many voters to consider a third-party or independent candidate. Hence, those that defend the electoral college and the status quo are actually arguing for,

“The path to winning the presidency should give the winner of both undemocratic primaries a chance to win.”

Americans deserve a system that gives them more meaningful choices, and the freedom to vote honestly for the candidate they prefer.

The Solution: Ranked-Choice Voting for President

I support a constitutional amendment replacing the electoral college with ranked-choice voting for presidential elections. This way, voters have a choice to rank multiple candidates or only one candidate and are fully free to vote for the person or persons they feel is/are the best. This would help spur genuine and healthy competition. Instead of voting out of fear, Americans would be able to vote honestly for their true first choice. Candidates would have an incentive to appeal beyond their partisan base and earn support from a wider range of Americans, resulting in broad coalitions.

Some critics say that ranked choice voting adds complexity. This is exaggerated, and even if it were true at some level, the benefit clearly outweighs the cost for the presidential election, whereas the best these critics could argue is that the added complexity is not worth the cost in congressional and state level elections.

The Problem Most Americans Never Hear About

There is another weakness in our presidential election system that receives far too little attention: faithless electors. Although Americans cast ballots for president, individual electors in the electoral college formally cast the official votes. Generally, electors will follow the popular vote results of their states, but the Constitution still leaves unresolved questions about what happens when they do not. Some states prohibit faithless electors and invalidate their votes. Others still allow those votes to stand, even while some will criminalize the act. In an extremely close presidential election, these inconsistencies could result in an existential constitutional crisis. The electoral college itself was designed because the founding fathers did not actually believe that individual voters had a right to elect the president; rather, they believed a group of elites were best suited to have the final authority to select the president, while individual citizens would vote directly for their congressional representative. The popular vote was originally a non-binding preference poll, even though over time, by cultural precedent, it became a binding mandate. Regardless of whether ranked choice voting is the most optimal solution, a constitutional amendment is necessary to remove the risk of faithless electors triggering a constitutional crisis.