Our recent presidential election marks the fifth time that a president has been elected by winning the required 270 Electoral votes, while at the same time losing the popular vote.
In this recent election the successful Republican candidate, Donald Trump, won the minimum required 270 Electoral votes, but lost the popular vote by some two million or more votes. How can this broken system be changed without going through the difficult and lengthy process of a constitutional amendment?
If the Electoral College were retained (thus avoiding a constitutional amendment) but the “winner take all” present practice for allocating delegate votes were eliminated, than a more representative election may still be possible by only congressional or state legislative action. Only the states of Maine and Nebraska have so far eliminated this winner take all policy.
If every state were required to select an alternative method such as pro-rating the popular vote based on the relative percentages each candidate received, then the winner take all policy could be completely eliminated and appropriately replaced.
Digital Access for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
Similar proposals have been bandied about for years but now is a time as never before where this change is needed.