How to Fix the Electoral College

Proposed Reform: Proportional Allocation of Electors

• OP suggests replacing winner‑take‑all with proportional allocation in each state using the Jefferson/d’Hondt method.
• Supporters say this would better align the Electoral College with the national popular vote while preserving the state-based structure.
• It’s noted this could be implemented by state law without a federal constitutional amendment.

Game Theory and Political Feasibility

• Several commenters argue states have strong incentives not to adopt proportional allocation unilaterally, since a state reverting to winner‑take‑all could gain outsized influence.
• Described as a “tragedy of the commons” equilibrium: system-level better, state-level suicidal.
• Some wish discussions focused less on “what’s better” and more on realistic paths to enactment.

Alternative Institutional Reforms

• Equal/Congressional Apportionment Amendment and the “Wyoming Rule” are discussed as ways to enlarge the House, making Electoral College weights more proportional.
• A much larger House (thousands of members) is argued to:
  • Reduce two‑party dominance and gerrymandering effectiveness.
  • Give voters closer, more local representation.
• Others flag practical concerns (more politicians, physical space, logistics).

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)

• Explained as a way for states to pledge their electors to the national popular vote winner once enough states join.
• Disputed points:
  • Constitutionality under the interstate compact clause.
  • Whether Congress or the Supreme Court would allow it.
  • Whether it advantages one party; views differ, and some see support as partisan and situational.
• Some see it as effectively just a national popular vote under another name.

Ranked-Choice Voting and Third Parties

• Some argue the core problem is “spoiler” dynamics and two‑party lock‑in, advocating ranked-choice (IRV).
• Others note IRV still has issues (e.g., “squeezed middle”) and hasn’t produced strong third parties where tried.
• Debate over whether Americans actually want viable third parties.

Arguments for Keeping the Electoral College

• Common themes:
  • Protects smaller or rural states from domination by populous cities and economically dense regions.
  • Seen as part of a federal system where states, not just individuals, are represented.
  • Limits campaign focus to a smaller set of competitive states, viewed by some as “economically efficient.”
  • Perceived as a long‑standing, mostly functional compromise; occasional popular‑vote mismatches are considered acceptable.

Arguments for Changing or Abolishing the Electoral College

• Critics highlight:
  • Voters in non‑swing states effectively don’t matter; candidates ignore safe states.
  • Vote-weight disparities (e.g., Wyoming vs. California) are seen as minority rule.
  • Historical connections to slavery and unequal suffrage are emphasized by some.
  • National popular vote is framed as more straightforward and democratic; some prefer full abolition, others prefer tweaks (proportional allocation, NPVIC).

Fairness, Fraud, and Decentralization

• Some fear a national popular vote would incentivize localized fraud in lax states, affecting the whole country.
• Others counter that current swing‑state focus already makes small margins dangerously important, and coordinated nationwide fraud would be harder.
• Evidence of widespread voter fraud is explicitly challenged in the thread.

Historical and Philosophical Framing

• Disagreement over whether the Electoral College’s primary origin was slavery protection vs. generic anti‑majoritarian design.
• Some emphasize the U.S. as a union of states (more EU-like), arguing that if federal power were smaller, many fairness arguments would lose urgency.