1. Iowa Green Party – Co-chairs: Holly Hart (hhart11@gmail.com)
Erin Young (yesitserinyoung@gmail.com)
2. IAGP has an online approval process that goes to our official work list (actually, it’s a discussion list,
but it’s serving as the official decision-making venue). An online vote was set up and this proposal
received supermajority support.
3. Author – Bob Mueller (mayatoddbob@aim.com)
100 N Main Street, Apt 202
Mount Pleasant, IA 52641
4. Proposed Platform Change to Section I. Democracy, A. Political Reform, Chapter 1 Electoral
Reform, f
5. Current language: “Abolish the Electoral College and provide for the direct national election
of the president by Ranked Choice Voting.”
6. Proposed revision: “Amend the Electoral College process so electors are awarded based on the
percentage each POTUS candidate wins in the state using ranked choice voting This will be done via
federal election law to create uniformity and ease of implementation.”
7. Rationale:
With most states awarding electors on a winner-take-all basis, the Electoral College vote fails to
reflect the national popular vote as well as disenfranchising many voters within a state. While many
have called for the elimination of the Electoral College, there is a middle ground between the current
system and abolition. Electors should be awarded based on the percentage each POTUS candidate wins
within the state.
The current method for awarding electors used by most states allows the Electoral College to be
played by statisticians and political operatives. Voters in swing states can end up losing their voice or
having too loud a voice in POTUS elections depending on which side of the win-lose pendulum they land
on. Swing states become king makers. Recent elections illustrate how damaging this is to voter
confidence in our election system.
The proposed elimination of the Electoral College would shift king maker status to the more
populous states, swinging the pendulum to the other extreme. The justification for such a change is the
“one person, one vote” idea, but that assumes voter turnout is consistent throughout the country. In
reality we know that is not true with some states also having governor and/or senator elections, ballot
initiatives, and differing levels of access to polling sites, that can spur higher turnout than other states.
After all POTUS is not the only office on November ballots.
This proposed change to the Green Party platform is a compromise between the current system
and abolishment. Elections would continue to be the jurisdiction of the states, but a federal law would
require electors be awarded on a percentage basis of each POYUS candidate’s votes. Electors no longer
have to be real people so the allocation could even be to the nearest hundredth. This is in line with ‘one
person, one vote’ while minimizing external influence of other items on the November ballot. Neither
the swing state nor the populous state have excessive influence.
Advantages of awarding on a percentage basis include 1) third parties would gain recognition
resulting in future growth, 2) the two-party stronghold to which we are now subjected will be broken,
and 3) voters would be made more aware of alternative choices. Maintaining state jurisdiction retains
auditability of election results, so necessary if voters are to have confidence in election results and feel
they had a voice.
Here is an article with more information/discussion:
https://therealmainstream.com/electoral-college-must-go-but-what-should-take-its-place/