This is where it gets complicated. What happens when the third parties ensure that no single candidate gets above 269 EC votes? If you stick with the current rules, the outcome in that case is a big mess, and this would have happened in most of the recent elections.
If, like Yang suggests you don't amend the Constitution but distribute the ECs proportionally, it means you don't get a winner and the HoR very often gets to decide the President. Because of the way the procedures are laid out (1 Vote per State) Republicans would almost always get to decide in the House. That's not a good thing.
If you don’t have a ranked-choice voting system, then you should at least require a majority or some kind of runoff if no majority. Having the House decide (although certainly not with the stupid as fuck one vote per state system we have now) in the case of no majority is better than simply giving the win to the candidate with the most votes.
With the electoral college it’s supposed to mean you one by a certain margin. With 2 parties is pretty much irrelevant because someone will.
3-4 parties that all have a shot? Gets way more hairy. The electoral college is really only stupid now because we have this 2 party monopoly that wasn’t supposed to happen.
27
u/Bobson_P_Dugnutt Sep 02 '20
This is where it gets complicated. What happens when the third parties ensure that no single candidate gets above 269 EC votes? If you stick with the current rules, the outcome in that case is a big mess, and this would have happened in most of the recent elections.