The First Step to Fixing the Electoral College | Robert Reich 

UPDATE: Since we made this video, both Minnesota and Maine have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. That brings the total electoral vote count of each state in the compact to 224. We are getting closer and closer to the magic number of 270.

Imagine not wanting this because you know you're never going to win the popular vote!

In a country that only has two parties, the fact that it isn’t a simple majority is astounding

All my life since I’ve understood politics, I’ve said the vote should go by the popular vote and note some dumb electoral college vote. That truly undermines people’s vote, which is why so many people think their vote doesn’t count which I truly agree with.

Another idea that I think should become more mainstream is ranked choice voting. This simple fix may not only ensure that the popular vote winner becomes the president, but it will effectively dismantle the two-party system and ensure accountability of elected officials, something we desperately need in this country. I would like to see more push for ranked choice voting.

We also need ranked choice voting while we're at it.

Maine just came on board with the compact within the past week.

A huge thank you to Robert Reich for his tireless work to promote practical ideas for preserving our democracy. We should all contact our representatives to press for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and to implement Ranked Choice Voting. Those two changes would make a huge difference in the smooth functioning of our democracy.

I want popular referendums we should be able to vote directly on issues like reproductive rights, firearms and immigration

An even simpler method would be to eliminate the all-or-none for the electors in a state, thus allowing each state's electors to be split up close to the actual percentages that a candidate wins in each state. While not 100% fair, it is closer than what we have today.

As a German with German voting rights, my opinion is: It would help if the electors of a state were no longer forced to choose the winner in the state, but voted for the candidates in proportion to how they performed in the respective states. So if candidate A won 30% and candidate B 70% of the vote in California, not all 50 electors should go to candidate B, only 33 to B and the other 17 to candidate A. There are a few states that follow this system of proportional representation.

Jus found this channel but I’d be happy to become a citizen of Robert’s Reich

1 very important note is that the compact doesn't take effect until enough states have joined to have 51% of the electoral college vote. This means states can join and keep voting like normal until they hit 51%. It makes the burden to join much easier initially. Secondly I am glad he mentioned the democrats in Alabama. This is probably the thing I hate most about our system is that a vast majority of people's votes don't matter because they live in a state that always chooses the opposite party.

It's worth mentioning the right's continued obsession with restrictions on access to the ballot and a general tightening of voter laws.

I’m Canadian and who gets the most votes wins. Period

The problem with a two party system is that it becomes a shared dictatorship, each side knows that they're the next winner no matter what. Most other countries have many different choices or at leas a third party choice. In Canada we have had the same two parties ruling federally since 1867, so it's been a shared dictatorship her too even though we do have other choices , people don't like change I guess.

The constitution doesn’t have political parties mentioned once, and this method is one of the reasons factions have become a fourth unchecked branch of government. Just as George Washington has warned us that it would.

All of us Non-Americans are baffled by how stupid and undemocratic that Electoral College thing is!

I'm so happy to see more people pushing for this!. Great information. It's nice to know this is happening..

I'd love to see this become a thing nationwide. As a moderate-to-liberal person living in a red state, it sucks knowing that my vote for president doesn't count. But it's sad knowing that red states like mine will never, ever go for this because the only way a Republican can get elected president is through the antiquated Electoral College system. Aside from 2004, no Republican candidate for President has won the popular vote since George H.W. Bush in 1988.

As bad as the Electoral College is it shows something about politics, that if your area is loyal to a party you get neglected but if you live in a divided area, the politicians will have to fight harder for your vote. Although after you vote, no matter who is in office you can expect that nothing will be done for you

At the very least we should stop giving all the electoral votes in a state to one presidential candidate. This creates the illusion that states vote completely for one party. It silences, obviates, and disenfranchises political minorities by erasing their voice. A more fair electoral system would, at the very least, automatically award electoral votes to candidates based on the percentage of that state's popular vote that the candidate received. For example, if a state has 10 electoral votes then a presidential candidate would get one electoral vote from that state for every 10% of that state's popular vote the candidate received. The last electoral vote would go to a simple majority of the remaining 10% of the popular vote. In this way each state's electoral votes would be split fairly between the presidential candidates. That would break the illusion of "red" and "blue" states.

I just clicked on the link Professor Reich provided for the national popular vote organization, and I used their contact form to send emails to my state representative and senator. It was very fast and convenient. You can do this in literally less than a minute. Let's all contact our representatives to urge them to pass legislation giving our state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Just do it! Make yourself proud!

I'm in Florida... I'm not gonna even waste my time contacting Rubio or Scott 🤷🏾‍♂️😂😂😂

Minnesota just passed it officially passing 200 electoral votes, only 65 more needed

One of the major problems is that the "first past the post" gets all the electoral votes from a state. To align it more with a national popular vote, while still giving power to smaller states, each state has a number of electoral votes equal to their Representatives in the House, plus two to count for their Senators. The electoral votes from the Representatives are awarded according to proportion of the popular votes per candidate. Then, the candidate with the highest popular vote in that state also gets the two electoral votes from the Senate. This way, there are still incentives to actually win in a state, but having a sizable-but-not-winning presence in a state is also taken into consideration.

At least as big of an issue is Senate representation. Wyoming, with a population near 600,000 gets 2 Senators, so does California which has 39 million people. The founding fathers came up with a pretty effective system for the circumstances at the time, but the circumstances have changed greatly.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior justification for selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith

The problem with getting any sort of major electoral reform passed is that the people who are currently voted into power would have to acknowledge that there's a flaw with the system that voted them in in the first place.

Your point is totally valid and compelling. Current system disenfranchises a massive number of voters.

Maine is now joining the compact (hopefully). Michigan may be next.

Thank you so much Dr Reich for bringing this pivotal movement to national audience. Ralph Nader and the organizers of this movement have been toiling relentless with mixed success. My state is already in the compact. Let’s get those 75 votes and CREATE real significant change!✌🏿🙏🙏✌🏿🙏🙏🤗

As a UK observer, this sounds like an excellent idea to me. We have similar problem with ‘first past the post’ in the UK but increasing numbers of people are fighting for proportional representation. I shall watch developments in the US with great interest.

I personally believe District Electoral Vote would be a good way to improve our electoral college system. This is what Maine does, and functions similarly to NaPoVoInterCo, except whoever wins the majority of votes in an electoral district gets that one district’s vote got president. So states would split their votes based on districts, and voters in non swing states would become enfranchised. Plus. Swing districts could pose to shake up how campaigns are run

If you're from Maine, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina or Georgia. You better be calling your state rep right now!! We need to protect our democracy before it's gone.

I weep. NC used to be a swing state. It is no longer and I want to move but can't. Thank you Robert. Sharing

One issue that has been raised with this system is ways in which bad actors could make it difficult to determine who won the national vote. In Alabama, for instance, they are working to restrict the announcement of popular vote counts in their state until after the national electors vote, which would force any states in the pact to either ignore the voters from Alabama or else to divide up Alabama's contributions to the popular vote some other way without knowing the exact votes. Don't get me wrong, I like the workaround to get rid of the Electoral College. But there are some roadblocks we will need to find ways around before it goes into effect.

Thank you for the practical advice. Please keep hammering Home what the average American can do to return democracy to this country.

Just get rid of the "winner takes all" systen and let the popular votes in each state decide the number of electors for each candidate

You can also diminish the Electoral College’s power by making the state electors proportional to the state popular vote (as in Nebraska and Maine). This would better reflect the popular vote, eliminate the winner-take-all aspect, and wouldn’t require a constitutional amendment,

I’ve been following the NPVC movement for more than a decade. I’m glad to see it’s still going.

I really really hope there is someone that really cares about this fighting hard for us Americans

The GOP will never allow this to happen. Only in America can two candidates lose by a combined three million votes and still be declared the winner.

This would be a start, but the ideal would be a ranked-choice vote for president, along with a mixed-member proportional system for Congress like what Germany and New Zealand has

Bragging time - MARYLAND was the first state to enact this law! As the Democratic Majority Leader I was the floor leader in the House. Then state senator (now Congressman) Jamie Raskin was the floor leader in the Senate. Let’s get this done people!

Talk more on Ranked Choice Voting please, this is how we dismantle the two party system and put electoral accountability back in politics

You know, imagine the following situation: People across the globe realise that some issues in the world could be better solved if there was a unified body of legislature who could overtake some matters of domestic policy in every country. With popular approval of 80% of the entire globe, the UN general assembly thus gains very limited legislative power in matters concerning international trade, and preventing egregious state abuses of human rights. Over time, the UN gains more and more power, as people start to demand that it do more. But after some time, people start thinking. If a country's UN representative is that powerful, then shouldn't they be elected directly by the people of their country? As such, over the next few decades countries across the globe switch to a system where instead of UN representatives being appointed by legislatures, they are elected via majority vote. Naturally, international political parties form to facilitate the campaigning of UN representative candidates. Due to the way electoral systems naturally progress, these political parties eventually coalesce into just 2 parties, both representing roughly half the counties on Earth. The UN general assembly now swaps between the 2 parties every 4 years, as about a dozen swing countries flip-flop between them. All other countries are solidly behind either one or the other political party. As such, the political parties spend all of their time campaigning in swing countries, while solid countries get consistently shafted by the UN general assembly, because they don't matter in maintaining power. People eventually also wise up to the fact that when counted by global popular vote, one party only consistently achieves 30% of the vote. The UN has meanwhile become so omnipresent due to the steady expansion of its powers that it becomes impossible to do any business without their permission and oversight. But people eventually realise that according to the UN constitution, countries still have the power to appoint UN representatives however they want. And so the people start advocating for the "Global Popular Vote Internation Compact". It's quite popular. Of the 193 members of the UN, 90 join. This represents 65% of the world population. However, there are 13 countries which refuse to join, because if they did, the two major political parties of the world would stop always campaigning in their favour. There are also 90 countries which refuse to join, because they only represent 25% of the world's population, and so would lose all their power in the UN if they joined. The Global Popular Vote Internation Compact never gains enough members to come into effect. This is the exact situation the US has found itself in since more than 200 years ago. The founding fathers never intended for the US federal government to become as powerful as it is. The founding fathers never anticipated that interstate political parties would form. The founding fathers didn't intend for there to be such a thing as a "presidential candidate". The electors were supposed to come together and negotiate who to lead the nation. Not pledge themselves to a candidate 6 months prior and campaign on the promise of getting that specific candidate into office. Nowadays they don't even need to campaign. Do you know the names of your electors? Of course not. The ballot only has the name of a presidential candidate on it. The US federal government was supposed to help states cooperate with each other, not to facilitate these strange power games. The founding fathers were naive, obviously. But who wouldn't be? Democracy barely existed back when the constitution was written. Obviously they'd get it wrong.

Thank you, Jamie Raskin for sponsoring this bill in Maryland! Our Governor O'Malley signed this back in 2007. We got the ball rolling; let's keep it going!⚽⚾🏀

I live outside the US now, and my last address in the US was in Massachusetts, so there's no point in me jumping through all the hoops for the privilege of casting a vote that effectively doesn't count. If enough states agree to this, I would finally have an incentive to participate in a presidential election again.

In the “swing state” maps at the beginning, NV/CO/MN/NH/VA/TX all stayed the same for each of those elections. So if the criteria we’re using for “swing state” is if there’s at least one change in the last 4 elections, none of those listed above are swing states….

Yes yes yes! Every vote counts! This should be supported!! National Popular Vote Interstate Compact *NPVIC*

I'm so happy to see more people pushing for this!

The Popular Vote Compact passed the Nevada legislature but was vetoed by the governor. However, the US Constitution explicitly states that it’s up to a state’s LEGISLATURE to decide how electoral votes will be allocated, not the state government in general. I would urge anyone who can claim to have standing to bring a federal lawsuit arguing that Nevada has already joined the compact and that Sisolak’s veto had no effect.

Thanks for the link!

I don't think this would survive a challenge in the courts, especially with the current Supreme Court. As much as many people hate the EC today, it was an important compromise at the constitutional convention where our constitution was written that helped it earn enough support to be ratified. While it is also true that the constitution also says states can choose to award EC votes however they see fit, there is no evidence that anyone at the convention thought this is how states would choose to do it. I don't see the originalists on the SCOTUS allowing an end run around the Constitution like this without going through the whole amendment process. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the EC abolished, by whatever means necessary. But I think this is a waste of time. I think the political effort would be better spent on gaining broad-based, bipartisan support for an amendment. Yes, that will be difficult and maybe even impossible in the current political environment, but I think its the only way forward.

I totally agree. The electoral college has given us the 2 Worth President in modern history. If we get rid of it, gerrymandering would be nonexistent and everyone would be able to vote fairly

Way more important than a popular vote is (in no order): ranked choice voting especially in primaries, all primaries on the same day or at least in 2 or 3 groups, electorates awarded by country not winner takes all, criminalize all forms of voter suppression and intimidation, increase access to voting, ensure there's hardcoded paper trails for votes, ban reporting on vote tally's until after all polling has closed, repeal citizens united, I'm sure there's more.

In August Minnesota joined so it's now 205 electoral votes

I vote often. However, my presidential vote has not counted for the last 35 years. Literally thousands if not millions of votes do not have an impact on the election. I understand when our country was young the electoral system probably was the way to go, but in the modern era it is archaic.

As the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact gathers interest, the GOP busily pushes its majority of red state legislatures to organize a convention to amend the constitution. Since constitutional conventions are not restricted to any agenda, GOP operatives plan to revise the entire constitution-- all without voter review and consent. The convention is to be a conservative ideological triumph, and a bulwark against "creeping liberalism" in the original constitution. In effect, the GOP continues its efforts to "game the system" for powers voters never authorized.

I'd like to see the 'winner take all' system for each state go away. nothing in the constitution says that's how it should be done.

This will kill the republican party!

You know, i dont really agree with this guy on many issues but I definitely can get onboard with this.

This is the first I've heard of this, and I was fully prepared to reach out to my politicians to request it, but then you showed that my state already has it! Yay!

You are the best educator of all time. Succinct & easily understood ❣️

A better idea would would be distribution of electoral college votes proportional to the popular vote in that state. That would give each state some individuality. It would also force politicians to try and win over republicans in New York or democrats in Arizona. If you simply elect based on overall popular vote, it means each state has no individuality at all.

I was taught the EC system was a comprise to help balance the power between states with higher populations and less populated ones that had more of the US agricultural land. Not only is compromise nearly impossible today, but now we're looking to circumvent foundational compromises? This video needed more context to sway me.

Another way to change it that would fix issues is to increase the total number of house seats to make smaller districts. If there were 1500 seats(850 to win!) The larger states would have the same representation as smaller states, and while Wyoming would go from 3 electoral votes to 5, California would go from 40 to 157.

Any presidential candidate running for a 2nd term should be required to win the popular vote. If you can't do that after 4 yrs in the White House, you don't deserve to be president.

GQP doesn't want EC gone because campaigns would be more difficult, plus they can't win if it's by popular vote - in the last 20 years, two of our five worst WH residents lost the popular vote!

Robert Reich has always made sense. That must scare the gops.

Yes, there should be direct election of the President. They are supposed to be the President of all Americans, not a super-governor of the states.

I live in Texas. I can’t imagine them ever going for this.

Thank you Mr.Reich for the clear explanation . I certainty shall contact my elected representatives.

This is now up to 17 states/jurisdictions and 205 electoral votes per the NPVIC website.

Bobby makes a great point. The fact that you guys want to consider yourselves part of the Democratic or Republican party means that those party leaders and candidates will take you for granted. The only voters that really count are the independence because politicians actually have to fight for their votes. What needs to happen is everyone should drop their party affiliation so that they have to fight for every single vote because they won't know which way you'll go, but of course, that's never going to happen since we're so tribal in this country.

I remember having this discussion in 1968 during my senior civics class! The electoral college was a hedge against "mob democracy" initiated by the founders following the bloody French revolution. It made some sense since the original states were the former small colonies and had small populations. But as the country expanded west and states become bigger with the increase in population of the country plus better communications, it was really no longer necessary. Today with instant communications we don't need the electoral college at all! If we want to be a true democracy where the voice of the people really matters then we need to eliminate the electoral college!

In the earliest days of the country, the majority of electors were elected from a particular congressional district, and so that getting the most popular votes in any given district was relevant for their election. Still each state had two electors that were elected state, at-large, so that they were elected by the most popular votes statewide. The result was that many states would have a mixture of electors from several parties, and the statewide winner did not get all of the electoral college votes for that state as a result. A few states have converted to this very early approach to electing electors to the electoral college. Again this approach would not require a constitutional amendment either.

Just as the current system results in candidates focusing mainly on the swing states to the neglect of safe states, this proposal will result in candidates focusing only on the large population centers, to the neglect of the rural areas. In my opinion, a better way would be to have each state award their electoral votes in the same manner as Maine and Nebraska, where the votes are divided among the winners of each congressional district instead of a winner-take-all model as the other 48 states. How this would have impacted previous elections, I don't know, but it does seem that it would spread the electoral vote more evenly according to the popular vote. And, it could also be done without requiring a constitutional amendment. I do agree though that the idea of electoral votes being cast by individual electors meeting in their respective state capitals is a concept no longer required. There is no need to have the counting of the votes in early January, and no risk of alternate slates of electors voting according to their own preferences instead of the result of the election. Of course, this part would require a constitutional amendment.

Mr. Reich, You represent... "A Safe Port, In a Sea of Insanity". Once again, Thank You!!

Let's reform the Senate too. So far, I've lived in voted in OH and CA. My vote has counted for around 25-30% of someone living in WY or SD.

Who thought this up? It is brilliant! But what are the legal arguments against it?

I would like to see something like this happen, but the problem with this proposal is that there is no way to hold any particular state to the deal. Any state can opt out of the agreement any time they choose. A change in the legislature of any state in the deal could mean that the state would probably opt out. A state legislature that believed its candidate could win the popular vote but not the electoral vote would opt in and visa versa. Perhaps each state joining the deal could be required to pass a state constitutional amendment requiring the legislature to comply with the deal. That way it would be very difficult to opt out. The other problem I see is that a heavily Democratic swing state like Michigan could be forced to assign all it's electors to a Republican candidate even though the people of Michigan are adamantly opposed to it. If the Democrat would win in the electoral college, but the Republican had a razor thin popular majority, Michigan would be forced to elect a Republican president. I don't think the people of Michigan would be very happy about that.

I live here in Colorado and we voted for it on the last election. I'm glad I voted for it

I live in NYC and have a small vacation cottage in NE Pennsylvania that I use occasionally. For medical reasons and personal needs I prefer to live full time in New York. Since NY is blue my presidential vote doesn't count or matter. If I were to move to Pennsylvania permanently and register there- bingo- my presidential vote has become instantly valuable and sought after.

Thanks so much, Prof. Reich!

The states that have joined this compact are all blue. But if Michigan joins the pact, and in an election where candidate A wins the state of Michigan, but candidate B wins the national popular vote, and thus the Michigan electoral votes go to candidate B, doesn't that invalidate the votes of the people of Michigan where a majority voted for candidate A? The best solution to this current disagreement over the electoral college should be that states slit their electoral votes based on who wins both the popular vote in the state and the congressional district, which is how Maine and Nebraska have it.

This is a really interesting idea. My father and I were just discussing the failings of the electoral college just recently, so I'll show him this to follow up.

I have another idea. Abolish the "winner takes all" concept and replace it with a "proportional" system. Electors would be selected according the popular vote ratios in each state. If "state X" had 40% of the votes for candidate A. Then 40% of the electors are selected by candidate A's party, etc. Ratio's would be rounded to closest numbers. Not a perfect solution but it would equalize states with large number of electors. The "winner takes all" is so unfair if Party A gets exactly 50.00001% of the votes, then they get all the electors. That disenfranchises the 49.99999% of that state's voters.

Thank you so much for all you do. I learn so much from you.

Another alternative would be to allocate delegates proportionally to the popular vote in state, instrad of winner takes it all. So of GOP gets 30% of votes in California, they get 30% of the delegates there. Same for Dems in Taxas. Each vote would count, regardless if you are in Alabama or in New York.

It may sound weird but the term "Popular" vote sounds unimportant, it makes our vote sound like a popularity contest. If we change the term to "Peoples" vote maybe it will carry a bit more weight. I totally agree with what you've said in this video Robert.

Getting rid of the electoral college is actually a good thing for America’s future.

This is the best explanation I've ever heard for doing away with the electoral college. It needs to be done it doesn't work anymore it needs to be amended

Can anyone tell me why the electoral college is use in the Presidential election only ? Lets start there and maybe some people will learn something.

Should the electoral votes not also go the way of Maine and Nebraska and be split proportionally?

Bush v Gore was technically the 20th century, but otherwise great points. Robert Reich is on my short list!

Maybe a good compromise would be the following: - the "senate" electoral votes would go to the winner of each state - the "house" electoral votes would be allocated nationwide proportionally This would mean that the electoral vote winner is the popular vote all the time! 😊

I see a lot of people mentioning Ranked Choice Voting in the comments. Yes, pretty much ANYTHING is better than First-Past-The-Post, which we have now. But I think Approval Voting is the way to go. It's easier to implement, easier to understand, easier to tabulate... it also doesn't exhibit the "center squeeze" effect.

the main issue with this is that obviously it isn't going to benefit the increasingly irrelevant party, and won't be possible until said party is already irrelevant, making it kinda a moot point outside principle. anyway check back in 2030 when younger generations are big enough to fix everything in this country