The Electoral College is hereby abolished. The President and Vice President of the United States shall be elected directly by the people.

Each elector shall cast a single vote for two persons who have consented to the joining of their names as candidates for President and Vice President. No elector shall be prohibited from casting a vote for a candidate for President or Vice President because either candidate, or both, are inhabitants of the same State as the elector.

Elections for the President and Vice President shall use ranked choice voting. Voters shall rank candidates in order of preference, and the candidate pair receiving the majority of the votes after successive counting rounds shall be declared the winners.

Elections shall be conducted in a manner that ensures equal access, security, and integrity. All eligible citizens shall have the right to vote in these elections without undue burden.

Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation. To ensure fairness and transparency in the electoral process:

  – An independent, non-partisan Election Commission shall be established to oversee the conduct of elections, the resolution of election disputes, and the certification of election results.

  – Any legislation related to the electoral process must be approved by a two-thirds supermajority in both Houses of Congress.

  – All actions and legislation related to the electoral process shall be subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with constitutional principles.

  – All proceedings and decisions related to the electoral process shall be conducted openly and made accessible to the public.

  – Regular independent audits of the electoral process shall be conducted to ensure fairness and transparency.

This amendment shall take effect immediately upon ratification and shall apply to the next presidential election following such ratification.

All provisions of the Constitution or of the laws of the United States which are inconsistent with this amendment are hereby repealed.

What Would Happen if the Electoral College Was Abolished?

The idea of abolishing the Electoral College and moving to a direct popular vote system has gained traction in recent years. Many believe that such a change would enhance the fairness and democratic nature of U.S. presidential elections. Here are several key benefits of abolishing the Electoral College, along with reassurances for those concerned about the potential impact on smaller states.

1. Equal Weight for Every Vote

One of the most significant advantages of abolishing the Electoral College is that every citizen’s vote would carry equal weight, regardless of where they live. Under the current system, voters in swing states have a disproportionate influence on the outcome of elections, while those in reliably red or blue states may feel their votes are less important. A popular vote system would ensure that every vote counts equally, encouraging greater political engagement and participation nationwide.

2. Enhanced Voter Turnout

When every vote matters, people are more likely to participate in the electoral process. In a direct popular vote system, citizens in all states would have a greater incentive to vote, knowing that their ballots contribute directly to the national outcome. This could lead to higher voter turnout and a more representative democracy.

3. Focus on National Issues

Presidential candidates currently concentrate their campaigns on a few battleground states, often neglecting the broader concerns of the electorate. Abolishing the Electoral College would compel candidates to address issues that matter to voters across the entire country, promoting a more inclusive and comprehensive political dialogue. This shift could lead to policies that better reflect the needs and interests of the entire nation.

4. Greater Legitimacy of Election Outcomes

A direct popular vote system would ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide becomes the president. This alignment between the popular vote and the election outcome would enhance the legitimacy of the presidency and increase public trust in the electoral process. It would eliminate the possibility of a candidate winning the Electoral College but losing the popular vote, which has occurred in several recent elections.

5. Simplified Electoral Process

The Electoral College system is complex and can be confusing for many voters. Abolishing it in favor of a straightforward popular vote would simplify the electoral process, making it more transparent and easier for citizens to understand. This clarity could reduce misinformation and increase confidence in the integrity of the election.

Assuaging Concerns of Smaller States

A common concern about abolishing the Electoral College is that smaller states would lose their influence in presidential elections. However, there are several reasons why these concerns may be overstated:

• Equal Representation: In a direct popular vote system, every voter in every state has an equal say in the election outcome. This means that candidates must appeal to a broad spectrum of voters across the entire country, not just in densely populated areas. Issues pertinent to smaller states would still be important because candidates would need to win over voters everywhere.
• National Attention: Without the Electoral College, candidates would need to campaign nationwide, paying attention to the needs and concerns of all regions, including smaller states. The interests of smaller states would be part of the national discourse, as candidates strive to build broad, inclusive platforms.
• Policy Impact: The policies and priorities of a candidate would need to resonate with voters across diverse areas to secure a majority in a popular vote system. This ensures that smaller states’ interests are considered as part of a comprehensive national strategy.

In conclusion, abolishing the Electoral College would create a more democratic, equitable, and representative electoral system. It would encourage higher voter turnout, ensure that every vote is equally important, and foster a political landscape that addresses the needs and concerns of the entire nation. Concerns about the impact on smaller states can be mitigated by the reality that a candidate must appeal to all Americans, promoting a truly united approach to governance.

Who Benefits from the Electoral College?

The Electoral College, a system established over two centuries ago, has long been a subject of debate and criticism. While it was intended to balance the interests of different states and provide a buffer against uninformed voting, in modern times, it has become a tool that disproportionately benefits certain groups, often at the expense of democratic principles. Here’s a look at who benefits from the Electoral College and why it poses significant risks to American democracy.

1. Minority Rule

One of the most troubling aspects of the Electoral College is that it can enable minority rule. This occurs when a candidate wins the presidency without winning the popular vote, as has happened in several elections, most notably in 2000 and 2016. In these cases, the winner-take-all approach used by most states means that the votes of millions of Americans effectively do not count. This undermines the democratic principle of one person, one vote, and allows a minority of voters to determine the outcome of a presidential election.

2. Corrupt and Partisan Actors

The Electoral College system can be exploited by corrupt and partisan actors. Because electors are typically chosen by political parties, there is a risk that they may not act in the best interests of the electorate. Faithless electors—those who do not vote in accordance with their state’s popular vote—pose a particular danger. Although rare, their potential to sway election results introduces uncertainty and undermines trust in the electoral process. Additionally, there have been recent attempts to submit fake slates of electors, threatening to subvert the will of the voters and destabilize the democratic process.

3. Disproportionate Influence of Swing States

Another group that benefits from the Electoral College is voters in swing states. Presidential candidates focus their campaigns on these battleground states, often to the detriment of voters in states that are solidly Democratic or Republican. This leads to an uneven distribution of political attention and resources, with candidates tailoring their policies and promises to appeal to a narrow segment of the population. Consequently, the concerns and interests of voters in non-swing states are often overlooked, creating a distorted representation of national priorities.

4. Entrenched Political Parties

The two major political parties, Democrats and Republicans, benefit from the Electoral College because it reinforces the two-party system. The winner-take-all method used by most states makes it extremely difficult for third-party or independent candidates to gain traction, as they must win entire states rather than accumulate votes nationwide. This stifles political diversity and innovation, limiting voters’ choices and perpetuating the dominance of the established parties.

5. Potential for Misinformation and Manipulation

The complexity of the Electoral College system can lead to misinformation and manipulation. Voters may not fully understand how their votes translate into electoral outcomes, which can be exploited by those seeking to mislead or confuse the electorate. This lack of transparency undermines public confidence in the electoral process and makes it easier for bad actors to manipulate the system for their own gain.

Risks to Democracy

The Electoral College poses several significant risks to the integrity of American democracy:

• Fake Electors: The potential use of fake electors to submit fraudulent results poses a direct threat to the legitimacy of elections. This tactic could be used to override the will of the voters, leading to a constitutional crisis and undermining the rule of law.
• Erosion of Public Trust: When the Electoral College produces outcomes that do not align with the popular vote, it erodes public trust in the electoral process. Citizens may feel that their votes do not matter, leading to decreased voter turnout and engagement.
• Political Polarization: The focus on swing states exacerbates political polarization, as candidates and parties concentrate their efforts on winning over a narrow segment of the electorate. This can lead to more extreme positions and policies, further dividing the country.

Conclusion

While the Electoral College was designed to balance the interests of different states and provide a safeguard against uninformed voting, it now primarily benefits minority rule, corrupt and partisan actors, voters in swing states, and entrenched political parties. It poses significant risks to democracy by enabling the use of fake electors, eroding public trust, and exacerbating political polarization. Moving towards a direct popular vote system would help ensure that every vote counts equally, fostering a more democratic and representative electoral process.

The primary goal of this amendment is to abolish the Electoral College and establish a direct election process for the President and Vice President. This process uses ranked choice voting to ensure a fairer, more representative election outcome.

Under this amendment:

• Voters will cast a single vote for a pair of candidates (President and Vice President) running together on the same ticket.
• The Electoral College is completely removed.
• The President and Vice President will be elected directly by the people through a popular vote.

Ranked choice voting allows voters to rank candidates by preference. Here’s how it will function:

• This process continues until a candidate pair secures a majority of the votes.
• Voters rank each candidate pair in order of preference.
• If no candidate pair wins a majority in the initial count, the pair with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are reallocated based on voters’ next preferences.

The amendment prioritizes election fairness and security by requiring:

• Processes that ensure voters can participate without facing unnecessary obstacles.
• Equal access for all eligible voters.
• Strong safeguards to protect the integrity of the voting process.
• No need for electors who can be biased by political parties or ideologies.

Congress is granted authority to create laws supporting the implementation of this amendment. Additionally:

• Any legislation related to this amendment must pass with a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate.
• An independent, non-partisan Election Commission will be established to manage elections, resolve disputes, and certify results.

To promote transparency and accountability:

• Regular independent audits will be conducted to ensure fairness and transparency in the election process.
• All election laws and decisions will be publicly accessible and subject to judicial review.

If ratified, the amendment will take effect immediately, applying to the next presidential election following its ratification.

The Electoral College can be seen as undemocratic because it allows a candidate to win the presidency without receiving the majority of the popular vote. This system values some voters’ choices more than others due to the winner-take-all approach in most states, which means that only the majority preference in each state matters. This undermines the concept of “one person, one vote.”

The Electoral College gives disproportionate influence to smaller and swing states. Each state receives electoral votes based on its congressional representation, which includes two votes for its senators, regardless of population. As a result, voters in less populous states have greater electoral power than those in more populous states, leading to unequal representation.

“Swing states” are states where neither major party has a strong majority, making their electoral votes highly contested. In the Electoral College, presidential campaigns focus heavily on these states, often neglecting the majority of the country. This means that voters in non-swing states, where outcomes are predictable, have less influence on the election, distorting national priorities and leading to unequal representation.

Because the Electoral College concentrates attention on swing states, voters in reliably “red” or “blue” states may feel their votes don’t matter, leading to lower voter turnout in those areas. In contrast, a direct election system would make every vote count equally, encouraging higher turnout nationwide.

The winner-take-all approach in most states means that a candidate can win all of a state’s electoral votes with just over 50% of the state’s popular vote, leaving the remaining votes unrepresented. This system can lead to a situation where the national popular vote winner loses the Electoral College, as happened in multiple recent elections, which many see as a failure to reflect the will of the people.

FAQ Answer

Yes, the Electoral College can increase the likelihood of contested or disputed elections. Close results in a few key states can lead to intense scrutiny, recounts, and legal challenges, as the outcome of the election hinges on a small number of electoral votes. A direct popular vote would likely reduce these risks by providing a clear, nation-wide result.

The Electoral College can suppress minority influence in certain regions. In winner-take-all states, minority group votes can be overshadowed if they consistently support the minority candidate within that state. Direct voting would ensure that every vote contributes to the outcome, giving minority groups a stronger voice in the final election results.

The focus on swing states can skew federal policies and resources disproportionately toward those states, as candidates and parties promise economic incentives and programs targeting key swing regions. This leaves other states and regions underrepresented in the national economic agenda.

Abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a direct election would mean that every vote nationwide has equal weight. This would better reflect the popular will, encourage voter participation, and lead to fairer representation in the presidential election, ensuring that the candidate with the most votes wins.

The Electoral College has faced criticism since its inception, with early debates over its potential to favor certain states and underrepresent others. In modern times, with population growth and shifts, these concerns have intensified, especially as recent elections have exposed flaws that result in outcomes contrary to the popular vote.

No, under a direct election, every vote across the nation would carry equal weight, regardless of the state it comes from. This means candidates would need to appeal to voters in all states, large and small, to build a broad national coalition. Instead of focusing on just a few swing states, candidates would campaign across the country to earn as many individual votes as possible.

In a direct voting system, the focus shifts to individual voters rather than states, which means candidates would need to address issues that resonate with people across the entire country, including those in small states. By removing the focus from states and making every vote count equally, issues affecting smaller or rural areas would be just as important to a candidate as those affecting urban centers in large states.

On the contrary, candidates would need to appeal to diverse groups to secure a majority of votes nationwide. This means they would need to listen to voters’ concerns from all areas, including rural and less populated regions, rather than just targeting issues important to swing states. With ranked choice voting, candidates would also benefit from addressing specific local needs to gain second or third-choice votes from a broader audience.

Doing so would alienate rural communities, likely causing people who live in rural America to vote for the candidate or party that tries to appeal to them. In a direct election, big cities alone do not hold enough votes to win the presidency. To win a majority, candidates would need to engage with suburban, rural, and small-town voters as well. This means all candidates would need to propose ideas that appeal to all groups of people. The most effective strategy would be to appeal to a wide range of voters nationwide, which means candidates would spread their campaign efforts across various regions, ensuring broad representation.

While the Electoral College was intended to balance power among states, in practice, it prioritizes swing states over both large and small states that are reliably “red” or “blue.” Many small states are overlooked because their outcomes are predictable, and candidates focus instead on winning over competitive swing states. A direct election would make every vote matter, encouraging candidates to appeal to all states, large and small, rather than just a few.

A direct election treats every voter equally, giving people in both large and small states an equal voice. Candidates would need to appeal to a broader population base rather than focusing on states with specific Electoral College advantages. This encourages a more inclusive approach to addressing regional issues, as candidates would aim to secure votes from every part of the country.

In any democratic system, regions with larger populations naturally have more voters. However, the direct election system prevents any one state from having more than its fair share of influence because every individual’s vote is counted equally. Large population centers would have influence proportional to their size, but they could not overpower the majority of the nation. Instead, candidates would need to seek widespread support across different types of communities to secure victory.

Ranked choice voting encourages candidates to seek broader support beyond their core base. To earn second and third-choice rankings, candidates would need to adopt more inclusive and balanced platforms that resonate with voters in diverse areas. This system motivates candidates to address the concerns of voters in both large and small states to build a coalition of broad support.

The current Electoral College system places excessive focus on swing states rather than ensuring fair representation for small or rural states. By moving to a direct voting system, every vote across all states matters equally, ensuring candidates address a wider range of issues and regions. Small states would no longer be overlooked if they were not swing states, as every individual’s vote would be valuable to candidates striving for a national majority.

Abolishing the Electoral College does not weaken federalism; it strengthens democracy by ensuring all voters have an equal say in presidential elections. Federalism will continue to protect state-specific interests through other areas of governance, such as the Senate, which represents each state equally. The direct election system for the presidency would simply ensure that the leader of the country reflects the national popular vote.