Two Simple Fixes To Our Presidential Election System

By Ernest Paicopolos, CEO, Polity Research Consulting

As the country focuses on the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s a good time to pause and consider how to make America’s presidential election process more rational. After all, the general election is just a few short months away. Both the primary and general election phases have some serious flaws—particularly in terms of representativeness and simple fairness.

The primary phase is disproportionately weighted in favor of two states (Iowa and New Hampshire) that bear no resemblance to the rich demographic diversity of the general voter population. The general election phase is locked into a ‘winner-take-all’ Electoral College system that puts too much emphasis on a handful of “swing” states—depressing voter turnout in overwhelmingly ‘red’ and ‘blue’ states. For example, a staunch Republican voter in Massachusetts has little incentive to vote in the presidential election—since the Democratic candidate is pretty certain to carry their state and collect all of its electoral votes. That voter is effectively disenfranchised.

So, what can Americans do to address these problems? There are actually two very simple fixes that can resolve most of these inequities.

A Rotating Regional Primary System. Both parties should agree on a regionalized national primary that rotates the “starting region” every four years. One could foresee five to six regions that array states (big and small) into blocs that have a commonality of issues and demographics. The rotation scheme would prevent any one region from being the “first in the nation” in every election cycle.

A Proportional Electoral College System. Instead of the current ‘winner-take-all’ system, a proportional system would allocate electoral votes based on a candidate's share of each state's vote (a plan advocated by erstwhile presidential candidate, Andrew Yang). For example, if Candidate A gets 40% of the popular vote, he or she gets 40% of that state's electoral votes. This would much more accurately reflect actual voter sentiment nationwide—and, in most cases, prevent a popular vote loser from winning the presidency.

These simple reforms seem to satisfy both the intent of the framers of our Constitution and the realities of 21st-century politics. Ironically, every state could immediately switch to this proportional approach—in fact, both Maine and Nebraska use a limited version of it already. While a Constitutional Amendment might be required to enforce nationwide compliance, a Presidential Election Reform Commission could lay out a plan for the new system and encourage voluntary participation by all the states. These reforms would not benefit either major party, and would bring long-needed reform to our most consequential election.