Proposal: State-Level Ranked Choice Electoral College Implementation

This proposal outlines a method for individual states to implement a more nuanced and representative approach to choosing presidential electors within the existing Electoral College framework. The system can be adopted unilaterally by any state, requires no changes to national laws, and can have positive effects from the first adopting state while incentivizing others to follow suit.

Key Components:

1. State-Level Ranked Voting:
   • States conduct their presidential elections using ranked ballots.
   • The state tabulates votes to produce a composite ranked list of candidates.
   • Tabulation methods can include Instant Runoff Voting or Condorcet methods. Non-ranked-ballot methods, such as Approval Voting, STAR Voting, Score voting, can be used as well, as long as they can produce a composite ranked ballot, and are resistant to vote splitting.
2. Publication of Rankings:
   • Within a week of the election, the state publishes and certifies its complete candidate ranking.
3. Determination of National Front-runners:
   • The state determines the two national front-runners using the following process:a) If no other states have similar laws, front-runners are determined by presumed electoral votes based on current state laws.b) If other states have similar laws, a simulated ranked choice election is conducted using ranked ballots (one ballot per elector).
     • For traditional states, each elector ballot has only one choice (the state's popular vote winner).
     • For states with this new system, elector ballots use the state's published ranked list.
4. Allocation of Electoral Votes:
   • The state assigns its electoral votes to the higher-ranked of the two national front-runners based on its own composite ranking.

Advantages:

1. Gradual Adoption: Can be implemented state-by-state without waiting for widespread agreement.
2. Electoral College Compatibility: Works within the existing constitutional framework.
3. Increased Voter Expression: Allows voters to express more nuanced preferences.
4. Reduced Polarization: Tends to favor candidates closer to the median voter's preferences.
5. Incentives for Adoption: Gives adopting states more influence by considering full national context.
6. Deterministic Outcomes: Avoids circular dependencies or iterative processes in determining electors.
7. Flexibility: States can choose their preferred ranking method without affecting system compatibility.
8. Transparency: Publication of full rankings increases electoral transparency.

This system provides a path to introduce ranked choice principles into presidential elections without requiring constitutional amendments or national legislation. It allows states to take advantage of more information in choosing electors while maintaining a stable, deterministic process. By reducing the impact of vote splitting and favoring broadly acceptable candidates, it has the potential to reduce political polarization over time.

The proposal balances the benefits of ranked choice voting with the constraints of the Electoral College, offering a pragmatic approach to electoral reform that can be initiated by forward-thinking individual states.

Frequently Asked Questions:

1. Q: Doesn't this system rely on Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), which has known flaws? A: While I personally believe the flaws with RCV are minor, the system is flexible and allows states to use any method they prefer, including Condorcet methods, STAR voting, or approval voting. The only important criteria is that it can produce a composite ranked list, which all of these methods can. The national tabulation method can also be adjusted, such as to a Condorcet compliant one. The core concept remains valid regardless of the specific method used within participating states.

2. Q: Can this system handle large-scale ranked choice voting? A: This system only requires ranked choice voting at the state level, not nationally. States that feel capable can implement it, while others can opt out. Furthermore, states can choose precinct-summable methods like certain Condorcet methods or approval voting if they prefer.

3. Q: What if a state wants to change its elector allocation after seeing other states' results? A: The system is designed to be game-theoretically stable. States have little incentive to deviate from their pre-established laws, as doing so would likely reduce their influence in future elections. That said, the state laws should disallow changing the allocation from that as defined by law.

4. Q: Is it legal for one state's laws to depend on other states' actions? A: While unusual, this isn't an interstate compact requiring agreement between states. Each state independently decides how to allocate its electors based on publicly available information. There's no legal barrier to this approach.

5. Q: Does this system still maintain Electoral College distortions? A: While it doesn't eliminate Electoral College effects, it reduces them. It maintains swing states' influence while potentially making other states more competitive, broadening campaign focus. The fact that a state such as Wyoming has more electoral votes per capita than a state like California is not affected by this.

6. Q: How does this affect campaign strategies? A: This system could make more states relevant in campaigns, as nuanced preferences in traditionally "safe" states could now impact outcomes. It encourages candidates to appeal to a broader base.

7. Q: Isn't a national ranked choice voting system better? A: A national system would require constitutional changes. This proposal works within the existing framework, allowing for gradual, state-by-state adoption and immediate benefits.

8. Q: What if a state's laws are unclear about elector allocation? A: States have an incentive to create clear laws to maximize their influence. The laws in participating states could include provisions for handling unclear laws in other states, but this is highly unlikely to be a significant issue.

9. Q: Does this give too much power to states that adopt it early? A: Early adopters may have some advantage, but this only incentivizes wider adoption, which we have to see as a good thing. As more states join, the system becomes more representative overall.

10. Q: How does this affect third-party and independent candidates? A: This system allows voters to express support for third-party and independent candidates without "wasting" their vote, potentially leading to more diverse political representation and less polarization.