Compromise Point System

Meeting halfway between winner-take-all and popular vote.

Winner-take-all, for multiple reasons, is the worst thing about the presidential election system. Someone could lose the popular vote by 10%, and still win the electoral vote.

Trump took the presidency while losing the popular vote by 2.9 million, but winning 30 states overcame that vote deficit. In 2004, John Kerry could have won by flipping Ohio, also with a 2.9 million vote deficit, with 20 states and D.C.

In winner-take-all, people who don't vote for the state winner are not only ignored, but their voting power is stolen away and given to a candidate they voted against. It doesn't matter how many millions of Trump voters turn out in California, because their state will disregard them and support the democrat. California's Trump voters could represent 5% of Americans, ignored, and that's just the tip of the ignored iceberg.

A compromise system, between state votes and human votes, between winner-take-all and opposition voters having any say at all, is necessary.

The new system must retain the advantage that exists for smaller states, because small states will be needed to approve a constitutional amendment. This advantage tremendously helps the states with 3 electors. States with 4 electors have, on average, double the population of the 3-elector states, but only 33% more voting power. This made a lot more sense when the most populated states had nine to twelve electoral votes, rather than 55. Most states are in the same boat as Texas and California (cheated by Vermont and Wyoming). We're stuck with the disproportionality, but we can certainly fix winner-take-all.

I have developed a new system that achieves the following:

- Provides a fair compromise between winner-take-all and popular vote.

- Will not ignore half of a state's voters.

- Uses a point system that does not require a national popular vote count.

- Eliminates electors, who are just a useless liability anyway.

- States will still be able to declare a winner without counting every single vote.

- Has a low-population-state advantage that is very similar to the current system.

- Reduces the odds of a large popular victory being a point-system defeat.

- Is much more believable as a way to measure public support.

(There are some conditions that I would add to this or any presidential election system, to most reliably find the people's favorite:

- An open, unified primary to narrow down the field to the four best candidates.

- An approval vote, which allows people to vote for as many candidates as they like.

- A second section of the final ballot, consisting of all the possible pairs of candidates (4 candidates make 6 pairs), to guarantee that the more popular of the top two is winning the championship (like the super bowl, two teams only).

But even without these conditions, this compromise point system is far superior to the current electoral system, which provides only a rough approximation of how Americans are actually voting.)

FORMULAS

The current formula for electoral votes, as required by the constitution, is:

 (electors of a state) = (number of representatives) + 2

 (And D.C. has the same number as the lowest-populated state)

Number of representatives of a state is somewhat proportional to population.

The "+2" is what gives low-population states their edge. Raising 1 to 3 is huge.

It is debatable whether winner-take-all actually helps anyone, but that rule is from state laws.

My new system applies two different formulas, to give the highest point-getter, the winner of the state, an edge.

STATE WINNER = (number of representatives + 1) x (winner's % of the votes) x 2

Notice the "+1" and the "x2," advantages that the losing candidates won't have. That's also the statehood bonus.

STATE NON-WINNERS = (number of representatives) x (candidate's % of the votes)

The percentages will be used as their nominal values, so 20.637% means multiply by 20.637. Technically, it will be:

100 x (candidate's votes) / (all votes in state)

Fractions of a point will be rounded to the nearest whole point in each state.

If a candidate has a small amount of voters, maybe 300, maybe 1200, it will sometimes not be enough votes to round up to one point, so they would receive zero. A handful of votes will usually not be enough to make a difference, so the future of the country won't depend on litigating over every single vote in every state. At the same time, rounding to the nearest point is tremendously more precise than rounding to the nearest entire state.

How does this work for small-state advantage? In a 1-representative state, the points will work out to be:

Winner = 2 x 2 x (winner's % of the votes)

Non-winner = (candidate's % of the votes)

That's a ratio of 4:1, if they receive a very similar number of votes.

In California, the calculations are:

Winner = 54 x 2 x (winner's % of the votes)

Non-winner = 53 x (candidate's % of the votes)

A ratio of 2.04:1 for evenly-matched candidates.

So in smaller states, the state winner gets a much larger proportion of the state's points. This should please those who believe smaller states need winner-take-all.

A large state's non-winners getting a significant portion of a state's points should please those who want the national count to resemble the actual popular vote.

One more ratio is important to note. In a 2-way contest, the influence that each state will have is the DIFFERENCE between the state's points for the winner and points for the loser.

So when all candidates have 50%:

Small state (winner points) - (loser points) = 150

California (winner points) - (loser points) = 2750

* The ratio between the influence of California vs the small state is 2750/150 = 18.33.

* The current ratio between electoral votes of California vs D.C. is 55/3 = 18.33.

The same ratio holds up whenever the top two candidates are evenly matched. In a 4-way race that has them at 25% each, CA vs DC will still be 18.33:1.

When the winner receives many more votes than the loser, the ratio increases a bit, but not enough to make a big difference. If, in each state, the winner has 1.5 times the votes of the loser (60/40), the ratio becomes 21.8:1, about 55/2.5. If it's 70/30, the ratio is 55/2.3.

The population ratio of California to Wyoming is about 67:1.

The small-state advantage has not had much effect on elections since 2000. D.C., Vermont, Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Maine usually support democrats, so they balance out the smallest republican states.

USING THE NEW SYSTEM WITH ACTUAL VOTE COUNTS OF RECENT ELECTIONS

Always remember that if the rules of the election are different, everyone will behave differently, and the vote counts and results could be quite different. For example, votes for small party and longshot candidates will be more common if the people know that protest votes can reduce the points the state winner will take.

I created spreadsheets to test four recent elections, and the results are:

2016, Trump wins by a smaller margin.

2012, Obama still wins by a lot.

2004, Bush wins by a strong, and now secure, margin.

2000, Bush wins, but just barely.

2016

Electoral system should have produced a result of 306-232, that’s Trump winning with 56.9% of electoral votes. Although he lost the popular vote by 2.9 million, Trump would still win the compromise system by 49.81 - 46.78%, a more than 3% advantage.

It is understandable that popular-vote supporters would want Trump to lose, but it seems his 2016 turnout would win any reasonable system that provides a statehood bonus.

It's hard to lose when you win 30 states, most of the medium-sized states, Ohio, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, and 4.5 million votes in California.

HYPOTHETICAL: If Clinton took 113,000 more votes to win Florida, Trump would still win the current system, by 3% of electoral votes. But the compromise system would give Clinton the win with a 0.9% point lead, and a 3 million vote advantage.

HYPOTHETICAL 2: Clinton needed to win all three, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, to win the electoral system. Flipping Pennsylvania would make it possible for Clinton to win the new system, but it would have to be a huge flip, taking away 5.5% of Pennsylvania's vote from Trump.

However, she could win the compromise system by barely flipping the two smaller states, winning 23,000 more votes in Wisconsin, and 11,000 more votes in Michigan.

2012

Obama won 26 states and DC, 51% of the popular vote, and a 5-million vote majority.

Obama won 61.7% of electoral votes.

New system, Obama wins with 55% of electoral points, to Romney's 43%.

2008

Obama landslide, no need to run the numbers.

2004

Bush won 31 states, 3 million more votes than Kerry, and took 53.1% of electoral votes. Bush would win the compromise system by 5%.

HYPOTHETICAL:

If Kerry had done a little better in Ohio, the electoral system would have given him the White House, despite losing the popular vote by 2.9 million. Bush wins 30 states by higher margins, for naught!

The new system, if Ohio flips to Kerry, Bush still wins by more than 2.1%.

To win the new system, Kerry would need a ridiculous 78% landslide in Ohio, with 800,000 more Ohioans voting. In that case, he would be winning the national popular vote by 700,000. That many votes are necessary to overcome his lack of states.

2000

“Winner-take-all,” coupled with Florida's incompetence, made this the election from hell. Evenly-divided states should not have as much influence as the electoral system gives them.

The supreme court ruled that Bush won the presidency, with 50.3% of the electoral votes. It was eventually certified that Bush won Florida by a little over 500, and New Hampshire by about 7200. Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin were also very close, in Gore's favor.

Gore won the nationwide popular vote by over half a million.

Bush wins the compromise system by 0.21%. Flipping Florida, or any state to Gore would still flip the election.

OK, I admit that my system doesn't fix the 2000 situation, but people would more readily accept the result of an election that doesn't throw out half the country's votes.

And again, if the rules were different, the campaigns and the vote would be different.

HYPOTHETICAL:

Gore could win the new system by flipping 200,000 votes in California, or 120,000 votes in Texas. It was a very close election.

The best remedy for Gore would be for Nader to not act as a spoiler! And the best way to do that is to collect more information from voters, for example, allowing people to vote for more than one candidate.

Winner-take-all distorts voter turnout. Maybe 59% of Texas preferred Bush to Gore, maybe it was 55%, maybe 75%. Maybe 35% of Americans wanted Nader, but we'll never know. A lot of potential voters stay home, because winner-take-all discourages people from actually voting when the state's outcome seems certain.

Hey, remember when Gore couldn't be president, because he was too much of a liar? Hahahaha. Ha. We are so doomed.

Anyway, the people's actual preferences should mean something, but winner-take-all prevents that.

A Real Instant Runoff

An infinitely better presidential election

Change the spring election to a unified open primary, with all candidates on one ballot, and the favorite four will advance. Each voter may choose two from the primary field. Parties are limited to having one candidate advance in the top four.

The fall ballot will have two separate parts:
1. Voters may choose as many of the four as they wish. (Approval vote.)
2. Voters are also presented with the six possible head-to-head pairings, and may choose their preferred candidate of each pair.

The primary determines the top four.
Part 1 in the fall narrows the field to two.
Part 2 is a real runoff between the top two. (Only one of the six pairings comes into play.)

The statehood bonus, and state-by-state tabulation could still be used, with a point system instead of electors. One option would be 300 points minimum (instead of 3 electors) per state for national tallies for the top four and top two, and 300 minimum for the final, with the winner of each state taking 100 points, and the remainder allocated proportionally to the top two per state.

Instant Runoff?

The term "Instant Runoff" is usually used interchangeably, and erroneously, with "Ranked Choice," a voting system that many people are suddenly excited about.

I have been aware of ranked choice since the 2000 election. I have done a lot of looking at it, and I can confidently say that the concept is very flawed. Ranked choice creates the illusion of a majority, when the actual majority might prefer another candidate. The 3rd choices of fringe voters are considered, while the 2nd choices of many mainstream voters are ignored; this is unequal voting power, in favor of weirdos. The complexity of shifting votes between candidates requires computer tabulation, and hand recounts have been called off due to difficulty. Ranked choice is not worth using. There are multiple superior alternatives.

1st and 2nd choices are apples and oranges. Ranked choice only counts some people's oranges as being worth apples. Approval voting makes it clear to all that all votes will count the same.

Ranked choice is not even an accurate "instant runoff", it is only approximate. While some people will vote strategically in a ranked choice, the only possible strategy in a top-two is to vote for the better one.

Top 4, Top 2, Head-to-Head

This system takes the primary out of the polarizing hands of the parties. Candidates who advance can be selected by a majority of all of the voters, not just a majority of the 1/3 who are party members.

The top four concept should result in a redistribution of power to at least four major parties, which would provide more options, and would make it less believable for one partisan to say "You have to support me, because the other three are all the devil!"

Limiting the field to four candidates also makes possible a real, "instant," head-to-head runoff, as a safeguard against possible strategic voting or spoiler effect. (Six pairs is doable, but six or seven candidates would make 15 or 21 pairs, which would dazzle voters.)

The fall election produces the actual top two with an approval vote that decides which two are acceptable to the most voters. Approval voting allows people to not have to choose between their favorite and one "who can win;" they can choose both. Or negative voters can choose the three opponents of the one they hate most, instead of giving the lesser of two evils disproportionate support just to keep the other one out.

The pairs section allows ALL voters to give input as to which of the top two is better. This is like insurance against a weird situation such as one liberal vs three conservatives who might split some votes, or a virtual 4-way tie. Although no one voting will know who the top two will be, it should still work for people to vote on each of the six possible pairs, or on as many pairs as they care to.

Why use Approval instead of only head-to-head pairs? It is important to have two sections because this allows voters to precisely answer two different questions. The first question is "Which of these would you want to win vs the others," and the second is "Which in each pair is better." If the fall ballot was head-to-head only, voting for a poor candidate over a terrible one could cause the poor one to beat the best one! With two separate sections, we are free to choose one per pair, without fear of putting a poor one over the best one.

[UPDATE 1/22/2020: I did another  blog post featuring this plan, complete with PICTURES!
https://americarepair.home.blog/2020/01/17/head-to-head-matches-make-a-better-instant-runoff/ ]

Three Rotating Presidential Election Systems

If people must stubbornly hold on to the weird rigmarole of the electoral system, they might enjoy a rotating variety of weirdness even more, and a sampling of sanity might even open some minds to better ideas.

Three systems with varying levels of improvement:

"Just A Bit More Rational"
Years ending in 8 or 9. (Such as 2048.)
An open primary narrows the field to the top 3 candidates.
Voters choose up to 2 in the fall election.
States make their own fall election rules, but must appoint electors based on the will of their own voters, not other states' voters. (I suggest states use winner-take-all, to appease the traditionalists.)
A candidate receiving the most electoral votes and a nationwide margin of victory of at least 2 electoral votes wins. (Majority is no longer required due to the fair spring election producing 3 popular candidates.)
Electoral votes as of 2019 total 538, based on each state's congressional representation, and D.C. having equal standing with 3 via previous amendment.

"Compromise Plan"
Years ending in 0, 1, 2, or 3:
(Years such as 2030 and 2042.)
Each state and D.C., having one fewer electoral vote each, would be 487 electors, but instead multiply x 100 for 48,700 points.
Add Puerto Rico, which as a highly populated U.S. territory will have 500 points, for a total of 49,200 points.
The open primary narrows the field to the top 4 candidates.
Vote for up to 2 candidates.
Electoral points must be awarded to all the candidates in each "state," in proportion with the statewide popular vote. Must win the national tally by a margin of at least 50 points.

"The Actual Will Of The People"
Years ending in 4, 5, 6, or 7:
(Years such as 2024 and 2036.)
The open primary narrows the field to the top 5 candidates.
Fall election is popular vote, vote for up to 3 candidates.
Add U.S. territories.
States, D.C., and territories will forward their vote tallies to the congress.
The candidate receiving the most votes wins, if the margin of victory is at least 0.1%.

All years will have these rules in common:
1-term limit, 6 years.
Open primary (all candidates on every ballot), vote for 2 in the primary.
Lame duck House is the tiebreaker when there is no qualifying winner in the fall, usually choosing from the top 2. If 3 or more are within the required margin of victory, the House will hold an approval vote to choose between them. If there's a tie for first, eliminate the least approved candidate, and vote again until there is one plurality winner. (Approval vote is when they may vote for as many candidates as they want.)

Dividing Presidential Powers

A President has a huge amount of responsibility. It is hard to believe that in our time one person can handle it all.

The public has certain reactions to a President simply doing his job, often divisive and counter-productive reactions. The more our national leader is exposed to this, the less effective he or she can be.

President Obama, for example, was set up as "pure evil" by hoaxers. He could not manage aid for the poor without the right wing screaming that he was destroying the character of the country, and deserved impeachment. He could not exist as commander-in-chief without foreign moles wrapped in the American flag, and their dupes, foaming with hatred that someone so un-military would insult the military by commanding the military.

When a president executes laws that were passed to aid the poor, and when he exists as commander-in-chief, he is doing his job.

A dumb senator recently instructed a president he didn't like that he should not nominate anyone to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, and a lot of people bought into the idea. When it was pointed out that it is the president's constitutional responsibility to nominate judges, the dumb senator rephrased his opposition.

A glaring question in my mind is how can the leadership of our Department of Justice serve at the pleasure of the President, without conflicts of interest?

Here are some ways to take some pressure off the president, and to have a better government.

I've already proposed an elected federal panel that would choose Supreme Court justices and perhaps other officials as well.

I have yet to propose a third house of Congress, that would perhaps be better than a "panel." I think I'd call it the House of Supervisors. They could make appointments, hire or fire certain cabinet positions, override vetos, and generally supervise the actions of the executive branch. This house would make sure the president remains only a leader and not an evil dictator. The Supervisors could also perform certain supervisory functions currently handled by Representatives or Senators, which would help those folks stop ducking their responsibilities of crafting legislation, declaring a start or end of war, etc.

The presidency could be divided up by department, with other officials having responsibilities as follows:

1. The senate doesn't need the Vice President to preside over them, and the tiebreaker thing is garbage. The Vice President should have something worthwhile to do that would allow us to judge his performance. I propose putting the Vice President in charge of the departments of Health and Human Services, and Veterans Affairs. It will be the veep's job to spend that money. When people want to hurt the President, they won't be able to blame him for the previously-mandated huge spending in those departments anymore.

2. When it comes to military command, a president is usually an amateur. And we have had enough unnecessary warfare during our time, due to presidents having control instead of congress.

I propose that a Director of Defense will have the role of "commander-in-chief," and replace the Secretary position. The Director could be nominated or replaced by the House Majority Leader, with both actions confirmed by the Senate. Term limit 11 years.

3. Department of Justice and FBI should be independent of the president. I was saying this long before Trump proved me right. Maybe Attorney General should be elected, and not in a presidential election year. FBI director can report to Congress.

Outside of Defense, Justice, HHS, Veterans Affairs, and FBI, the President still will have most of the departments to worry about, which should be plenty.

Supreme Court / Presidency compromise?

It has just occurred to me, after reviewing and posting Supreme Court plans today, that perhaps there is a simpler way that could better satisfy the American public.

Last year, I proposed a new Presidential election formula that would retain but reduce states' influence, making the popular vote count for more, which most people view as increasingly important.

My Federal Elector Panel plan for appointing Supreme Court judges is another plan that contains concessions to the pro-state crowd, since the President, who is chosen partly by states instead of humans, is the one who currently chooses our Justices, and therefore it makes sense to continue the state influence there.

Wouldn't it be an elegant solution for state legislatures to choose the Panel of Federal Electors (which will appoint Supreme Court and possibly other officials such as FBI director), and allow the American public to finally have one undiluted popular-vote election, for President?

And don't try to lecture me about the need for Presidential Electors.  The concept was tested in 2016, and it failed the test, partly because the states and people of our country reject the concept of Presidential Electors being anything more than completely unnecessary messengers.

(Just for the record, they used the word "elector" in the Constitution the way we today use the word "voter," we know this because they referred to the people who choose Representatives as "electors," and the word "voter" does not appear in the Constitution.  So it's clear to me that choosing of Presidential Electors was supposed to be choosing a local smart person, who would, with the other smart people, vote for President.)

Anyway, this compromise would keep and even strengthen the small states' influence over the Supreme Court, while allowing the majority of the American people to finally choose their own President.  The Court would stay weirdly conservative, while standing independent of Presidential politics, and rotating out on a regular basis.  The President would become more concerned about more people, as Presidents should be.

Supreme Court 2017, summary

Summarizing and explaining today's other post, concerning a new Panel of Federal Electors and the Supreme Court.

Millions of Americans are acting under an assumption that lifetime appointment of Supreme Court Justices is somehow necessary for the court to make independent decisions.  But they are wrong.  The idea of lifetime appointment would apply if they had a short term length with eligibility for reappointment, so of course, we should avoid those things.

Lifetime appointment is an idea that becomes worse as we head into a future of increasing lifespans and accelerating change.  The people of the future have a right to govern themselves, and not be held decades behind by dinosaurs of supreme power.  For the U.S. to remain a world leader, we need to show the people of the world that we are on the ball, current, enlightened, and not mired in outdated traditions.

The American people, unfortunately, use future Supreme Court appointments as a major criterion for choosing a President, that is, we choose Presidents according to their usefulness as Supreme Court electors.  We were supposed to choose presidential Electors who then choose a President, not to use the President as an elector.  The intention was for the President to set up the government, with appointment of judges being only one part of his or her expansive and important job.

Perhaps the founders did not anticipate the people's prioritization and politicization of the Supreme Court.  Our present Court appointment process adversely affects the quality of our Presidents, who adversely affect the quality of the Court.

Presidents have a habit of appointing to our highest court people of little to no judicial experience.  W looked around the room and decided to appoint his own attorney.  When she was rejected, he appointed, for Chief Justice, a man with about two years experience.  Obama's appointee, Kagan, was also green.  This seems reckless to me.

Presidents want their influence on the Court to be long-lasting, so they want to appoint young people.  Appointees are frequently in their 50's, so that they might serve for the next 50 years.  My hope is that with a term limit we will see OLDER appointees, for their valuable career experience of having other people's lives in their hands, who will retire around a reasonable age of 75 to 80, before dementia hits, rather than 100, 110, who knows how long they can stay alive.

We must separate Court from President.
We must protect our future people from our past judges.
We must encourage the promotion of the best judges, rather than the best-connected 50-year-old lawyers.

A panel of Federal Electors will be chosen by the people, and some by legislatures of larger states, in the third June following every Presidential election.  (This amendment only talks about the Supreme Court, but it is conceivable that instead of bogging down the President and Senate with hundreds of appointments they now deal with, the new federal electors could also be used to appoint federal attorneys, or other officials of public interest, such as FBI, EPA, Commander-in-chief...)

The number of electors of each state will be between one and five, based on state population.  The five electors of each state with greater than 10% of the national population will cast two votes each.  Electors of other states only one vote each.

Federal electors will appoint Supreme Court Alternate Judges, who will be promoted to Justice as soon as a Justice seat is vacated.  Unless there is a disaster, the Court would never be short-handed again.  It would eliminate the pathetic possibility of partisan politics leaving Justice seats unfilled.

In such an important job, where the vacancies are caused by random retirement and death, it is not reasonable to not have replacements ready in advance.

The sitting Supreme Court Justices will have their terms end according to the schedule laid out in the amendment.  The schedule is based on tenure, on setting up somewhat even vacancy intervals, political balance, and a goal term length of fourteen years.

The court would be temporarily reduced to seven Justices in order to speed the retirement of long-serving members, maintain political balance, and to set regular rotation intervals.  Future courts will once again have nine Justices.

Neil Gorsuch would become the first Justice subject to the new constitutional term limit of exactly fourteen years.  It would be several more years before the firm fourteen-year limit applies to everyone, as one of the two new Justices required to bring the number back up to nine will serve extra years in order to space out the rotation schedule.

The number of alternate judges will be maintained at three.  When one retires or is promoted, the electors will appoint a new alternate judge.

After a Chief Justice leaves the Court, the title of Chief Justice will be awarded in a vote among all the sitting Justices, including the alternate judge being promoted.  In the case of a tie, the President shall cast a tie-breaking vote.

One thing we need to make sure is included in this plan:  The right of an outgoing Panel of Electors to appoint during every minute of their term, so no one can say "you're close to the end of your term, so we might as well block you."

Proposed Amendment, Supreme Court and Federal Electors Panel

(Note: rather than attempting a rewrite of a whole Article, this is presented as a plan, in a somewhat rough draft, not nearly as polished as last year's Article II.)

Index:
Federal Elector Panel,
Scheduled Elections and Retirements,
Future Appointments and Term Limit
-

Supreme Court- ending lifetime appointments, appointing judges in advance, removing the responsibility from the President

Federal Elector Panel:

Justices will be appointed to the Supreme Court by a panel of Federal Electors, who will be chosen by the People of each state and the District of Columbia, and the governments of the larger states.

The first election of Federal Electors will be held in early June, the first June after adoption of this amendment, except in the event that the amendment is adopted in April, May, or June, the election will be postponed until the following June.  In the event that the election would land in a presidential election year, the election will be postponed until the following June.  All subsequent elections of Federal Electors will occur according to the following rules.

A national election day for the People to choose Federal Electors will be held in early June, the third June after every presidential election.  If there are two presidential elections in the same interval between election of Federal Electors, the above rule still holds.  The term of previous Federal Electors ends upon the swearing in of their successors, except for the terms scheduled herein to end on specified dates.

The People of each State having a population, as measured by the last census, of less than or equal to 1% of the total population of the States plus the District of Columbia, will choose, and the People of the District of Columbia, will choose one Federal Elector from one field of candidates in each State or District, and one Alternate Elector from a second field of candidates, to serve should the Elector be unable.  These small states will have only a Peoples' vote, and the state or district governments will not vote.  Their Federal Elector will have one vote.

The People of each state having a population of greater than one percent, and less than or equal to five percent of the population of the states plus D.C., will elect two Electors from one field of candidates, by each voter choosing one candidate, and the two with the most votes win.  The same method will apply to a second field of candidates, from which two Alternates will be elected.  The Alternate having received more votes would replace the Elector having received more votes, and the Alternate having received fewer votes would replace the Elector having fewer votes, should an Elector resign, die, or be otherwise unable to perform the duties of an Elector.  The legislatures of these middle-sized states will also choose, after January 31, and before May 1 of the election year, one Elector and one corresponding Alternate, and if they fail to choose before the deadline, their state will be short an Elector.  These states may be represented by no more than 3 Federal Electors, who will have one vote each.

The People of each state having a population greater than five percent, but less than or equal to ten percent of the population of the states plus D.C., will elect three Electors from one field of candidates, by each voter choosing up to two candidates, and the three with the most votes win.  The same method will apply to a second field of candidates, from which three Alternates will be elected.  The Alternate having received the most votes would replace the Elector having received the most votes, and the Alternate having received the fewest votes would replace the Elector having the fewest votes, should an Elector resign, die, or be otherwise unable to perform the duties of an Elector.  The legislatures of these larger states will also choose, after January 31, and before May 1 of the election year, two Electors and two corresponding Alternates, and if they fail to choose before the deadline, their state may remain short of Electors.  These states may be represented by no more than five Federal Electors, who will have one vote each.

Each state having a population greater than ten percent of the population of the states plus D.C. will also choose five Federal Electors and Alternates in the same way.  Electors of these states will each have two votes when choosing Judges, both of which must be cast together for the same Judge, while all other Electors will each have one vote.

Scheduled Elections and Retirements:

Justices of the Supreme Court, upon adoption of this amendment, will no longer be entitled to a lifetime term, and will leave the Court upon expiration of their terms, as specified herein.

The term of Justice Anthony Kennedy is scheduled to end upon the swearing in of his replacement, who will be chosen by the President within 30 days of the adoption of this amendment, and who, without a vote of disapproval of the Senate within 30 days of nomination, will join the Court, and serve a term of no more than fourteen years.

The term of Justice Clarence Thomas, and the term of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, are both scheduled to end on the 90th day following the adoption of this amendment.  These two seats will remain unfilled until after the fourth panel of Federal Electors has been elected.

The first panel of Federal Electors will, between the 30th and the 90th day following their election, appoint two Alternate Judges, and will assign the order of their swearing-in so to determine which of them will become the next Justice.  The first panel of Federal Electors will subsequently maintain the number of Justices at seven, and the number of Alternate Judges at one.  The first panel may appoint no more than three Judges in two years, or four Judges in three years, and may continue their duties until their term ends at noon, May 31, the year of the next Federal Elector election.

The term of Justice Stephen Breyer is scheduled to end at noon, December 1, during the first year of the first panel of Federal Electors.

The term of Justice John Roberts is scheduled to end at noon, December 1, during the second year of the first panel of Federal Electors.

The second election of Federal Electors will be held two years after the first election of Federal Electors, except that the election will be postponed for one year if it would otherwise fall upon a presidential election year.

The second panel of Federal Electors will, between the 30th and the 90th day following their election, appoint two Alternate Judges, and will assign the order of their swearing-in so to determine the order of their ascention to Justice.  The second panel of Federal Electors will subsequently maintain the number of Justices at seven, and the Alternate Judges at two, and they will appoint no more than three Judges in two years, or four Judges in three years, and may continue their duties until their term ends at noon, May 31, the year of the third Federal Elector election.

The term of Justice Samuel Alito is scheduled to end at noon, March 1, 2024.

The third election of Federal Electors will be held two years after the second election of Federal Electors, except that the election will be postponed for one year if it would otherwise fall upon a presidential election year.

The third panel of Federal Electors will, between the 30th and the 90th day following their election, appoint two Alternate Judges to temporarily raise their number to four, and will assign the order of their swearing-in so to determine the order of their ascention to Justice.  The third panel of Federal Electors will subsequently maintain the number of Justices at seven, and the Alternate Judges at three, and they will appoint no more than four Judges, and may continue their duties until their term ends at noon, May 31, the year of the fourth Federal Elector election.

The term of Justice Sonia Sotomayor is scheduled to end at noon, December 1, 2025.

The term of Justice Elena Kagan is scheduled to end at noon, March 1, 2027.

The fourth election of Federal Electors will be held Four years after the third election of Federal Electors, except that the election will be postponed for one year if it would otherwise fall upon a presidential election year.

The fourth panel of Federal Electors will, between the 30th and the 90th day following their election, appoint two Alternate Judges, and will assign the order of their swearing-in so to determine the order of their ascention to Justice.

The seats formerly held by Justices Thomas and Ginsburg will be filled on July 15 following the election of the fourth panel of Federal Electors, restoring the number of Supreme Court Justices to nine.
The seat formerly held by Justice Thomas will be filled first, and this new Justice will be scheduled for a term of thirteen years, eight and one half months, to end at noon, April 1.
The seat formerly held by Justice Ginsburg will be filled second, and this new Justice will be scheduled for a term  of seventeen years, four months, and seventeen days, to end at noon, December 1.

The fourth panel of Federal Electors will subsequently maintain the number of Justices at nine, and the Alternate Judges at three, and may continue their duties until their term ends at noon, May 31, the year of the fifth Federal Elector election.

The term of Justice Neil Gorsuch is scheduled to end at noon, April 10, 2031.  This will be the first term restricted to the new standard of fourteen years.

Future Appointments and Term Limit:

Justices of the Supreme Court will retain their Justice seat, in good behavior, for one term of fourteen years.  Upon their resignation, inability, death, removal from office, or expiration of their term, the next Alternate Judge will immediately ascend to full Justice.

A person appointed or elected to the Supreme Court will first serve as an Alternate Judge, who will observe court sessions, but will not participate, except with the consent of a Justice who is absent or recused.  Such consent must specify the cases in which the absent or recused Justice will not participate, and the Alternate Judge, having received consent, will remain a participating Justice on and will rule on said cases, and will return to the role of Alternate upon completion of the same cases.
An Alternate Judge will ascend to Associate Justice to fill a vacancy on the Court.

The role of Chief Justice, being unfilled, will be filled by a vote of the Associate Justices choosing one of their own ranks to be Chief.  If there were empty seats of the Court at the time of choosing a new Chief, there will be another vote held after all the Justice seats are filled.  In the event of a tie, the acting President of the United States will vote to break the tie.