A New Electoral Process

Supercharging the Popular Vote - Constitutionally

My sister-in-law asked me why we don’t just use the popular vote instead of the electoral college. Here is the answer and a way to bring the popular vote into relevancy while still abiding by the law of the Constitution.

As we approach the election, again we will debate why we don’t elect the President using the popular vote versus the electoral college votes from each of the states. The simple answer is, we follow the law as it is written in the Constitution.

The founders (rightfully) feared an ignorant populace of uninformed and undereducated voters who could be easily swayed by rhetoric (campaign promises) or bought off with tax dollars (or a barrel of beer :-)) for their special interest (student loan forgiveness, free phones, free healthcare, or no tax on social security benefits, etc.).

They were, of course, right, as they were on so many of the issues we still face today. Yes, they were wrong about slavery from our view of today, but if you spent the time to study the actual ratification process and the convention where all of this was endlessly debated and decided, you would also discover we would not have had a United States without slavery still in place then. And because of the Constitution, we were both able to abolish it AND survive as an intact nation eighty years later. Neither were possible in 1787. Please study real history; not 1619.

Back to the topic at hand. Think about where we are today. Our voting public is indeed exactly as the founders assumed it would be - ignorant of facts and issues. Easily swayed by social media, cable media, or the American Pravda press.

Actual voter turnout is low, and folks are not educated about what is truly happening in our government, or how their vote even matters. In fact, in today’s polarized environment, your presidential vote doesn’t matter unless you live in one of six or seven states and in one of 22 counties (at least in the 2024 election).

With elections now being decided by thousands of votes in this handful of states, how is it possible for the loser to win the popular vote and still lose an election? The key is in the title of our country. We are a series of individual states coming together into a confederation and agreeing to abide by a series of rules codified under our Constitution. The tenth amendment specifically states any power not granted to the Federal government by the Constitution are held by the states.

The Federal government was supposed to provide oversight and perform a limited set of tasks that benefited all 13 states (at the time). As we grew westward and added additional states to our Union of States, we continued to have strong state’s rights. Each state had their own governments and their own ways of deciding the rules within their states.

We also had mobility. If you didn’t like how your state ruled, you could leave. In the old days, it was westward to new territories and new states. Today it is mass migrations out of high-tax states like California, New York and Illinois to low-tax states of Florida, Arizona, Tennessee, and Texas.

We fought a Civil War, one result of which was to diminish the autonomy of the states and increase the power of the Federal government beyond what was initially granted in the Constitution. Even then, it wasn’t until the turn of the century into the 1900s when the so-called Progressive era began that big government replaced the state’s rights with federal rights. This culminated in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth amendments.

These amendments made Senators elected by the people (removing the State’s appointed advocates from the Congress) and implementing a federal income tax, guaranteeing revenue for the federal government from the people instead of from the states.

These two things, along with the creation of the Federal Reserve banking system, fully turned the United States into something the founders had hoped to avoid. A giant authoritarian body. The states no longer had a say, and the idea of a government granted power by the states was now a government ruling over citizens directly.

The states lost their leverage to rein in the central government and the people lost the protections their states afforded them with local governing versus faceless, nameless federal government regulation over which they had no ability to fight.

Flush with new money from the income tax, the progressives led by President Wilson began the creation of the fourth branch of government. One not sanctioned by the Constitution but beholden to special interest and the government itself, not the citizens or the 50 states it was suppossed to represent, not rule over. Filled with departments of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats (a word they created), the American government ceased to serve the citizens or the Congress.

This bureaucratic state was supercharged by FDR using the depression to expand government. A depression caused mainly by the ineptitude of the Federal Reserve leaders. These Leaders (bankers) make decisions to help insulate themselves (first) at the expense of the common citizen’s well-being and that of the country as a whole.

Finally, LBJ provided the coup de grâce with his Great Society fully entrenching the idea of the government and citizen tax dollars used to provide cradle to grave services to the poor and minorities without also incenting them to fully embrace the American dream of hard work and upward mobility.

We fought a Civil War to end plantation slavery and then instituted a Great Society one hundred years later, reimplementing social slavery on the poor under the guise of big government benevolence. This is a topic for another time.

Today, we just keep adding more ‘services’ courtesy of this government bureaucracy, which was exactly the opposite of the founder's vision with the Constitution.

Okay, so what the heck does this have to do with the popular vote being used to elect our president? Nice history lesson, professor. What does this matter? It matters because it shows an example of how the Constitution and its ideas were subverted to create a government that is anything but ‘for the people, by the people’.

It also shows how a switch to a simple majority of popular vote is just another subversion of the type of government of checks and balances the founders tried to set up to prevent populism from destroying the idea of good government.

Left to their own devices, a child would eat ice cream all day while playing video games, never bath and certainly not get up early to attend school, (though lately, maybe missing indoctrination at most public schools is not a bad thing...).

I think we could all agree this is not a good outcome. We all have to do things we don’t like in order to achieve results we will like, or at least to build skills we will need to progress in life and our careers. Like signing up for student loans to get an education to improve our earning potential.

It takes a person of extraordinary integrity to vote against the candidate offering to forgive this debt burden. Even if it is the ethical thing to do. Especially if they see others fully embracing the idea or getting out of their legal obligation to pay debt they signed a contract to repay to society. Student Loan forgiveness is just one example of the danger of populism.

Getting back to the union of 50 states making up America. The idea is Maine differs from Ohio, which differs from Illinois and New Mexico. This makes America unique. When the Constitution was being drafted, there was great concern over the most populous states, then, Virginia and New York, having an outsized influence on the new government over smaller states like Rhode Island and Delaware.

This is why we have two Senators, regardless of state size, to balance out the House of Representatives, which is apportioned by population.

Senators were appointed by state legislatures and served longer, so they would represent their state’s interest to counter the interests of the bigger states. Those states would have a bigger voice with more House members, but the Senators would balance this out with equal representation regardless of state size.

This check and balance would ensure unfair bills passed favoring big state majorities in the house at the expense of the smaller states would not pass the Senate. The Senate could vote against passing popular, but ultimately damaging or unfair legislature, without worrying about public opinion. They answered to their state. Check, balance. Exactly how the framers envisioned it. Radical change would be difficult. Remember this. It will be important shortly.

Hopefully, you are following their logic. It is the idea behind the tyranny of the majority riding rough-shod over the minority, or in this case, the needs and voices of the smaller states.

Now we move on to the President. The leader of the Federal government of limited powers. In the original Articles of Confederation right after we won the War of Independence, there wasn’t even a head of government. It was a committee.

They were so worried about recreating the problems we had just fought a war to leave (a powerful government with a powerful leader, in this case English King George III) they refrained from even having a single leader!

After a few years where the lack of a central government with any actual power, they realized the struggling country needed something more. The Constitutional Convention was formed. Out of this came the Constitution. Keep all this in context. They didn’t want a king. They needed a single leader to be the face of the country. To lead and to form treaties and represent the country but not to RULE.

Throughout this convention, they knew Washington would be the first leader. A man of uncommon character and virtue, who they were certain would not abuse his position. Hard to imagine, but Washington ran unopposed for his two elections!

In fact, Washington insisted on the term President versus Emperor or King. All the framers were vehemently opposed to the idea of factions and special interest (i.e. political parties, lobbyists) having an undue influence on this central government.

This is all important backstory to understand why the Electoral college exists. The Constitution is purposely designed to not elect the President by the people. The House of Representatives, your congressmen and women are the representatives of the ‘people’ in government.

It is also why the House has all the important tasks. Declaring war. Voting on the budget, impeachment. The House is beholden to the people. The Senate is beholden to the states, and the President is actually beholden to the congress, not the people!.

The President is the leader of the government. The President is really the leader of the Senate and the House of Representatives who are (now) elected by the people. This is an important distinction.

The Electoral College is a series of Electors appointed by each state to vote on who should be President to represent the states. We are NOT a democracy. We are a representative republic. This is why the citizens do not vote on every bill in congress. Our elected representative does on our behalf. Each Congressman or Congresswoman represents on average 761,000 citizens.

Presidential elections are not a popular election. It is an election by each state to determine for whom their state’s electors will cast their State’s electoral votes for President.

How these electors were chosen was left to the states by the Constitution. Again, respecting that each state might want to accomplish this task in their own way - the framers were always respecting states rights.

Over time, it became common practice in the states to appoint these electors by popular elections in each state. Although this was not fully adopted by all the states, for a hundred years or more, in some cases. Regardless, the number of Electors granted to each state was through apportionment based on each state’s population and the annual census.

Remember, the framers drafted a Constitution that had to convince both the states and their voters to agree with giving up some of their freedoms and rights to a central government. This is why there are so many checks on power and so many checks and balances to make change hard.

This is a good thing. Think about hairstyles, or beanie babies, or man buns and how quickly something goes from all the rage to being ridiculous. We would not want our laws and lawmakers acting in the same manner.

To recap, each state has Electoral College representatives apportioned by population. Within each state, it is up to the state to determine how these Electors are chosen. Over time, it has evolved into having them apportioned by the popular vote count in a winner take all contest.

For example, Minnesota has 10 electoral votes. Whoever wins the popular vote total in Minnesota, even if it is by a single vote gets all 10. The other candidate gets none, even if they have 49.9% of the votes cast. Talk about disenfranchising your state’s voters!

This is true everywhere except for Maine and Nebraska, which have a hybrid where they award a delegate based on a district level outcome for the congressional districts and two based on a statewide total vote.

This is more in line with how the founders thought the Election of the President should occur. It should be decided by the States individually, not by the entire population as one.

A state the size of California with a massive population accounts for ONE less electoral vote than Utah, Idaho, Montana, North and South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. Eleven states and 6x times the square miles of California.

This was exactly what the Constitutional Framers were concerned about when they created the Electoral college versus a straight majority popular vote rule.

If you believe in state’s rights and equal representation of various states issues being viewed as equally important in Congress, you could see the logic behind this. When you further look into the urbanization of America, you also see it is small geographies of densely populated cities in states that carry the election for one party. Look at maps of county by county votes in America and you see a sea of red with dots of blue in both of the last two elections

(2016 County Election results)

(2020 County Election Results)

For instance, look at Nebraska. In an entire state of red, there are two counties of blue. One of these counties represents ONE out of Nebraska’s five electoral votes. We don’t vote by square miles in this country or a Democrat would never win an election. If we were to go for pure popular vote, we would end up in a similar situation where only states with the densest population centers would decide elections and a Republican would have a hard time ever winning again.

An election decided by straight popular vote ensures California, New York and Illinois receive the majority of government taxes and attention - because voter turnout in these largest cities are all that would matter.

Even in red states, the large cities would contribute to the Democrat totals and receive any tax funding for their cities rather than for the entire state of Texas, Florida or Georgia for instance.

If you are in the heartland and have a need for tax funded improvements, forget it. Even if all of you band together to demand it, you wouldn’t matter. Your voice is irrelevant in a sea of dense city votes in a popular vote election. Nebraska has one blue county. Guess where any funding for Nebraska would go?

This is just the reality and there would be nothing anyone could do to change it. There would be nothing illegal about choosing to spend tax dollars where they ‘buy’ the most votes. It happens all the time today. Cyncial yes, but also true.

The entire process comes down to money. Where it is allocated, and how much longer we can continue to print $2Trillion dollars a year we don’t have to keep buying votes…

The straight popular vote total for President does therefore NOT provide true representative government for ALL our citizens. If we are going to change the way we appoint our President, I propose the following suggestion (I am sure I am not the first to look at solving it this way, it is common sense after all) to ensure every citizen is in fact equally valuable, regardless of the state in which they live.

A proposal for using the popular vote in STATES to decide Presidential Elections

• 2 Electoral votes for winning a state. Each state awards two of their electoral votes to the overall winner of the popular vote in the state. Think of this as the two votes representing the two senators each state has. So that is 100 total electoral votes awarded based on the overall popular vote getter in the 50 states. We’ll discuss Washington, DC later. You win the overall vote in the state, you start with 2 electoral votes for each state you win.

• Remaining electoral votes awarded proportionally. Next, to make sure the popular vote is more representative of the outcomes, we would apportion the electoral votes within each state based on the percentage of the total popular vote each candidate gets there.

  In the entire state, NOT by congressional district. President is a statewide election. For instance, if a state like Minnesota has 10 electoral votes, the most popular candidate there gets the first 2. Then the remaining 8 votes would be awarded based on the popular vote out to two decimal points, rounded up.

  In 2016, Hillary Clinton would have won the 2 for the overall vote and 4.07 electoral votes for her 50.83% of the statewide vote. Giving her a total of 6.07 electoral votes. Trump would have gotten 3.93 electoral votes for his 49.17% of the total vote. Now the true desires of the voters in Minnesota are reflected in the distribution of the electoral votes. Every vote counts and now matters!

You extend this out to all fifty states and it suddenly changes the entire dynamic of the presidential elections. Let’s look at some positives:

• Every state now matters. The candidates can no longer take 43 of the states and DC for granted.

• Voters now have a reason to vote. Voters of both parties who do not vote, because they know their vote does not matter – many republicans in California, New York and Illinois and many democrats in Texas, Ohio, and Tennessee for instance, now have a reason to vote. Their candidate will get a fraction of the electoral votes of their state now thanks to their vote. EVERY VOTE NOW MATTERS!

• No disinterested voters. All will now have a voice in the outcome. And more reason to pay attention and actually demand more from their candidates to convince them to vote and to vote for their candidate. No more laments of “why vote, my vote doesn’t matter in state x’. Now it does!

• Economic boosts to all states. States where no money is spent in an election may now get some amount of campaign dollars spent to help their local economies as candidates can no longer ignore the 43 states that are not competitive.

• The popular vote now matters. The popular vote will now directly impact the outcome in each state and in the overall election - proportionally. This silences those who claim we are denying the results of the popular vote totals.

• No Constitutional Amendment required. This does not require a constitutional amendment to change the way the system works. To go to a straight popular vote would require a constitutional amendment and ratification by 38 state’s voters.

• States control how their electoral votes are calculated. It is an easy fix that can be done with the agreement of the states. You can honor the wishes and vote of your own state citizens and have their votes matter.

• Removes the threat of the unconstitutional National Popular Vote Interstate Compact initiative. This disingenuous effort is designed to do an end run around the Constitution and ensure permanent democrat majorities. By simply ignoring the actual outcomes of the voters in the state. This pact says the states would agree to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the overall popular vote across the country. Regardless of the actual outcome in their state! Essentially taking Nebraska’s votes and awarding them to the most popular candidate in California, New York City, Chicago, LA and Houston, regardless of how Nebraskan’s vote. This disenfranchises every voter who voted against the democrat and is clearly unconstitutional.

  Those advocating this clearly do not want to take their proposal to the voters and risk not being able to get 38 states approving a constitutional amendment. Though, with our ignorant voter base and the megaphones of American Pravda media, I am not entirely sure this wouldn’t pass. A sad day indeed if this comes to pass.

I have gone back and analyzed the votes awarded using my suggested process for the 2000, 2016 and 2020 elections, which were the closest in recent history. It did not change the outcome of any of them, though Trump wins with 270.59 to Hillary’s 267.41 in 2016, so it becomes much closer than the 306 to 232 outcome.

2020 is also much closer as well, with Biden winning 278.37 to Trump’s 259.63 vs the 306 for Biden to 232 for Trump.

2016 is actually the closest with this new method of proportional electoral votes, not the 2000 election as one would assume which found Bush with 276.33 vs Gore with 261.67 versus the original outcome of 271 to 267.

The interesting thing about 2016 is the showing of third-party candidates. Evan McMullen won over 20% of the vote in Utah. There would have to be some concession made for strong third-party candidates. Say a minimum threshold of 10 or 20% of the vote in a state to get a portion of an electoral vote. Using 10% the outcome is still a Trump victory by 270.02 vs Hillary with 267.07 and McMullen with 0.91. Going below 10% risks muddying the waters by awarding votes to candidates that have no plurality of support in a state and no hope of winning.

The main thing is to see how implementing this popular vote system tightens the race. Now imagine, in each of these races, how few additional voters who chose not to participate would now change the outcomes if they were incented to pay attention or cast a vote because it clearly would make a difference.

Trump beat Clinton by tenths of a percentage in 2016. Imagine voters in Nebraska, Oklahoma or Mississippi voting for Clinton. Even in these small states, a few thousand more Clinton voters in a deep red state, where their vote was irrelevant under the current rules, now matter and she wins! The same can be said for Trump in 2020, if a few more voters were motivated to vote in deep blue states like Virginia, New York, and California and Trump gains fractional electoral votes to make up the difference.

This would be a wonderful change and excite and engage voters who have cynically given up on participating in our countries greatest gift. The freedom to choose our rulers with each state’s vote, and to express our delight or disgust in them by voting to keep them, or to throw the bums out.

The other change we would have to make is to change the total from 538 to 536. DC should not have ANY say in our presidential elections. This is a bold statement, but again the founders understood this conflict of interest. If anyone bothered to read the Constitution, it states clearly that DC may NOT have a vote in the elections. If you choose to live there, you voluntarily give up your right to have a say because you work for the government.

It is not taxation without representation. It is a choice. To be fair, and if they want representation, they should include the residential portions of DC within Maryland for the Presidential election, giving the ONE additional electoral vote they would gain from the additional population for the election and the electoral vote count. Not the disproportionate three they award today.

If DC becomes a state, again according to the Constitution, ALL the government buildings and entities MUST leave DC. Without the government, DC ceases to exist So what is the point of being a state if you lose all your employers? It would take a Constitutional amendment to add them AND then to overturn the proscription against giving a state the undue influence of having the seat of government in their state.

This makes common sense. Which is exactly why the democrats want to make them a state. That and 92%+ democrat voting constituents. If DC becomes a state, the government and all the agencies need to relocate. I would suggest Kansas or Nebraska wheat or corn fields.

It is the same reason they are screaming for the popular vote, because they know the value of dense urban cities. It’s much easier to harvest votes from a 10-story apartment building in a city than it is to drive around a suburb in the heartland helping folks fill out ballots and delivering them to the ballot box.

If we were to implement this type of voting system, I think you would instantly see voter turnout increase as more people would feel compelled to vote, knowing their vote DOES matter. This in itself, will lead to more honesty and transparency from candidates on the issues because they can no longer assume anything.

They can count on the 2 votes from the predominantly red and blue states for winning the total vote in each state. Every other electoral vote is going to depend on them winning higher percentages of the voters and convincing them to vote.

I would combine this change with the following additional changes to ensure the integrity of the vote:

• Election day is a national holiday every two years. No more worrying about finding time to get to a voting booth. We might still need to close the bars until after the voting ends 😊.

• Abolish mail in ballots. Ban ballot harvesting. We abolish mail in voting and harvesting, as they are both potential areas where it is easy to inject dishonesty into the process (See the James Baker III/Jimmy Carter report from 2005 on the dangers of mail in balloting. Although it is near impossible to find online now because it was so damaging to the cause of mail in balloting. No wonder all the links are now broken to it... https://www.jurist.org/news/2005/09/carter-baker-election-commission/ - try it and see for yourself - purged from the net.)

• Absentee voting for a reason. Go back to absentee voting rules where you had to have a reason to not cast a vote in person on election day.

• More polling places. With election day now a holiday, we can expand the number of polling places.

• Increase staffing for more polling places. Use the national guard to augment volunteers to staff and ensure only legal citizens are voting. More volunteers can now be recruited or paid because it is a non work day.

• ID is required. ID verification is a requirement. Just as it is to board a plane, cash a check, drive a car, etc. All things everyone does in this country everyday. And something we have required to vote for over 200 years.

• No same day voter registration. Democracy is not an entitlement. It is earned and it requires participation. Ensuring easy registration should be a requirement, but allowing same day registration is another recipe for potential fraudulent actions. We know when election day is for every Presidential election for the next three hundred years. It is no secret. There is no excuse to not register to vote well before election day.

• Election day is election day. No early voting or extended voting. For absentee and military votes, again, it is about personal responsibility. Follow the rules and deadlines to cast and send the vote in time to arrive to be counted.

• Paper ballots. No voting machines. And an actual paper ballot able to be audited. What a concept. Check my name off the registered voter list. Count the votes. If the checkboxes in the book and the number of votes don’t match, there is fraud. Pretty straightforward. No need for multi-billion dollar voting machine contracts. Maybe the states can pay more volunteers working the polling precincts with the savings.

• Community involvement. Communities can help make sure disabled and older adults can cast a ballot by assisting with an absentee ballots. We can make sure every citizen who wants to vote is able to cast a vote. This should be a no-brainer.

• Polling places where populations are concentrated. With increased polling places, they can be set up in retirement homes so the less mobile are not penalized by inability to get to a polling place. There can also be more in cities with high-density populations where there is a better chance poll workers will actually know the voters. These increase the chances for voter integrity and safe and fair elections all can feel confident were conducted with minimal chance of fraudulent votes.

The bottom line is we need to restore confidence in the voting systems for everyone who votes or for those who have ceased to vote because they feel the system is rigged, or that the process is no longer fair. This system, as described here, is both fair and enfranchises millions of voters who are not taking part today. They now have a legitimate voice in the outcome.

Those who say we don’t need any of this have only one reason to fear it. Because they are abusing the current system. Whether it be ballot harvesting, abusing the mail in ballot system, illegal immigrants casting votes, or counting on intentionally discouraging voter turnout in states where they have overwhelming majorities.

We could even go so far as to do away with polls. What a concept. Why do we even have polls? What purpose do they serve? Why do I care if my candidate is winning or losing in a poll? Someone deciding to vote for a candidate because they are popular is the worst possible reason to do so. Second only to voting because of a celebrity endorsement. For either party. We can and should do better.

If the candidates are forced to make their policies clear, I should choose based on whose policies help me, my community and my country the most and the candidate I believe will actually do what they promise. Why do I need a poll for that?

Polls exist for ONE reason. To disenfranchise voters. You see a poll where your candidate is losing by X and you wonder why you should bother to put down your phone and go cast a vote. One party controls most polling.

This is what is known in the military as a PsyOp. Psychological Warfare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare . It is about manipulating opinion, emotions, and behavior. American Pravda is excellent at this. So was Josef Goebbels.

Why practice PsyOp? Because you can’t win in the realm of better ideas or policies. When you cannot count on a majority to be swayed by your facts, you have to resort to other tactics. PsyOp is one. Avoiding unscripted interviews and press conferences is another tactic. Being vehemently against transparency is yet another.

Arguing against IDs, having to prove voter eligibility, requiring in person voting, or using paper ballots are all ‘disingenuous’ arguments. Why? Because until recently, all of these were EXACTLY how we voted! Why is going back to a system that worked for 200+ years suddenly not acceptable? There is only one reason. Because someone is gaming the system successfully and does not want to lose their unfair advantage.

Nor is efficiency an excuse. We weren’t waiting days or weeks for the outcomes of elections when it was in person voting with paper ballots with the exception of 2000.

One final thought on integrity. In each of these contested elections in 2000, 2016, and 2020 where accusations of cheating were made by both sides, using this new method of popular vote apportionment for the states and fractional electoral votes, makes the reasoning for potential cheating go away.

Before, losing a state by 500 votes as Gore did to Bush, it cost Gore all of Florida’s 25 electoral votes. And with a margin like that or mere thousands in other states as we saw in all three of these elections, fraud could have an impact. In our new proposal, it becomes irrelevant as both candidates would have received 11.50 electoral votes.

The only potential incentive to continue to strive to win be one vote is the two electoral votes you win by winning the outright popular vote in the state. Valuable yes. But perhaps not as valuable as ensuring you get 16 or 11 and the other candidate gets none (Georgia and Arizona 2020, the midwestern Blue Wall in 2016). Even if there were fraudulent votes, their impact would be minimized in our proposal.

Millions of dollars would have been saved and damage to the American electoral system (and psyche) avoided as a result of these acrimonious accusations and Supreme Court challenges.

The only losers in this scenario are the American Pravda media who lose the opportunities to bloviate 24/7 about the consequences of hanging chads and Supreme Court rulings. Stopping this would be an added bonus :-). As would stopping the endless polling phone calls…

This is the system of voting we ALL should agitate to adopt. It makes the popular vote relevant, does not require a Constitutional amendment, and does not require a Supreme Court challenge.

It is common sense. It is also why one party will fight tooth and nail to ensure it is never implemented. What does that tell you?

WST4Y