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.

If I could change one thing, I'd give you two.

The one most important change would be to simply allow people to vote for two.

The two-party system would become a more-than-two-party system, all on its own.  No more lesser of two evils.  No more "don't throw your vote away."  No more spoilers.  If you could vote for two, you could vote your conscience AND vote for a mainstream candidate.  No more top two, who only need to destroy the other one to win.  More positivity.  More voter participation.  More expensive for the powers-that-be to control them all.  More democracy.

See the summary page for the rest of my Presidential election plan.  http://constitutionrepair.blogspot.com/2016/10/summary-of-presidential-elections.html?m=0

About blog posts on Article II, 2016

If you're using a smartphone, you can scroll to the bottom for a link to the full site, that will show a list of posts on the right.

There are three posts published today, October 1, 2016, regarding a revised Article II of the Constitution.

  One is the Article II itself, which has long and detailed sentences, like the original Article II.  It's a little awkward, but I tried to be thorough.

Another is a relatively brief summary of the proposed Presidential election process, I hope that 2016 will cause others to agree that the old system is not working.

The third post is called an Explanation, which has my commentary on why items were added or changed.

About Constitution Repair

This blog contains my proposals for Constitutional amendments that will make our government better.

The United States Constitution of 1787 was the best compromise our country's founders could make at the time.  It describes a basic framework of a federal government, leaving almost all details and policies to be created by those who would serve in the government.

Today the United States is a thriving nation, much to the credit of the Constitution.  But throughout our history, the insufficiencies of the Constitution have left America's people at risk.  The United States has fought a Civil War, its leaders have even beaten and shot one another; the President's responsibilities are incredibly vast, and at times he seems to have all the power he cares to take, and the Department of Justice will hesitate to investigate the President since the Attorney General is always his appointee and political ally; the military usually has a novice as commander-in-chief; the vagueness of the Constitution allows a handful of judges to tell all of us what our laws must be; Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed with little or no judicial experience, and could hold their position forever if advancing technology keeps them alive, while just as easily, experienced Justices could be appointed for a set term and replaced at regular intervals, and not have one side terrified with thoughts of the other side appointing too many Justices; incumbent Congressmen, who would be fired by a retain-or-fire referendum of all voters, keep winning primaries of loyal party voters and thereby remain in office; the parties have coalesced into two monstrosities as a result of over-fifty-percent-of-electoral-college elections and majority-makes-all-the-rules in Congress, the parties cause countrymen to sacrifice the well being of their country for the sake of helping their cronies win the next election, in 2016 the parties have given us two of the most hated people in our country as the candidates for President, the voters are divided and manipulated by the parties as the voters dare not waste their vote on any candidate outside the big two; and the people are afraid to fulfill the founders' expectation that people should control their own destiny, and protect their own basic rights, by amending the Constitution as needed.

The purpose of this blog is not to scrap our obsolete, and vague, yet extremely important 1787 frame of government, but to propose necessary changes to it, to solidify our many rights that are too important to remain merely implied, and to repair its insufficiencies to provide for the continued success of our marvelous United States of America.

After these updates, many years in the future, Americans may see fit to build a new frame, perhaps resembling the Constitutions of Germany and Japan, which were designed by Americans in the 1940's, or that of South Africa, which was created in the 1990's.  But for the United States of 2016, our best hope is to first repair the old one.

Anthony Maloley
Omaha, Nebraska

Article II, 2016 Revision

Article. II.  Proposed Revision, Year 2016

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America, who shall hold the Office, together with the Vice President, for the same Term of six Years.

The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of the January following a Presidential election, and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Before they enter on the Execution of their Office, they shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President (or Vice President) of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In Case of the Removal of a President from Office, or of a President's Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President.

These are the qualifications of the offices of President and Vice President, and any who do not meet all of the qualifications shall not be included on ballots or be eligible for election or appointment.
A candidate must communicate in American English, and must be a living human person, at least 40 years of age upon inauguration.
A candidate is required to have been born to at least one parent who was at the time a citizen of the United States.
A candidate must have resided as a documented United States citizen for 20 years or longer, in the states, or District of Columbia, or abroad in the service of the United States.
A candidate is required to have served as an elected member of Congress, an elected Governor of a state, or in both offices, for a total of at least four years, before February 1 of the Presidential election year.
A President may not be elected to more than one term, and all votes cast for a previously elected President and any running mates shall be disregarded.
A person who serves an abbreviated time as President shall not be elected or appointed President or Vice President for the beginning of the next term, but after an interval of 3 years out of these offices, the person may again become President or Vice President if previous time as President totaled less than 3 years.
A person who is serving as President may not be a candidate for any office, and may not participate in election campaigns for any candidate or party.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during his or her Term, and the President shall not receive during that Term any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Section. 1.A.
Election of the President

The word "state," where included in these rules for election of a President, refers to the states and to the District of Columbia.

Summary of election process:
Presidential candidates must collect voter signatures for ballot access in each state.  A First Round vote will select four candidates in each state to advance, and their votes will be tallied nationally.  The top four in the national tally will become finalist candidates, who will select running mates to form candidate tickets.  The four tickets will appear on the second round ballot, upon which a voter may vote for up to two tickets, in all states on Presidential Election Day.  A number of bonus votes will be generated for the winner of each state, and added to the popular vote, and the ticket receiving the most votes shall become President and Vice President.

Government resources shall not be used to facilitate party primaries or caucuses during a Presidential election year, nor shall party events be used instead of either round of the Presidential election.

Citizens aged eighteen years and older, in good legal standing, may register to vote as a declared member of whatever party they may choose, or as an independent voter.

For any candidate to be eligible for the First Round vote, petition signatures must be collected, starting March 20 of the previous year, and submitted to state authorities before March 20 of the election year, and the candidate must communicate to the state election authority, during the election year and before April 1, a request for ballot access.

A valid petition must have one candidate's name at the top of every page, and must have at least two hundred dated signatures, printed names, addresses, city, and county of registered voters of the state.

States will, if possible, include on the First Round ballot five eligible candidates, one each selected by the five most popular parties in the state before the 1st of April, with party popularity determined by voter registration.  States will also include the remaining eligible candidates having the most petition signatures, regardless of party, with the total number of first round candidates on a state ballot not to exceed 25.  States may, by law, set a lower numerical limit to apply to all first round candidates, but such a limit shall be no fewer than 10.  Party affiliation of any candidate shall not be indicated on the ballot.

Ties for ballot access will be broken by coin toss or other means of determining a random selection.

First Round ballots shall not include a write-in option.  If there is some unavoidable disaster, and proper ballot forms are not available, a write-in vote for an eligible ballot candidate shall count, and a vote for a non-ballot candidate shall not count.

American English ballots will be used in all states.  States are permitted, but shall  not be required, to also provide ballots in other languages.

Ballot access fees are prohibited.

The First Round Election is to be held in every state and the District of Columbia on the Tuesday following the first Monday in June.  Absentee ballots shall be made available before May 12.  Voters must request absentee ballots from their state or county of residence.  Citizens not registered to vote in the states, who are abroad with the military, may not vote in the First Round Election, but may register with the military and vote on Presidential Election Day.

Voters may vote for 0, 1, or 2 candidates.  One ballot indicating three or more votes shall be counted as zero votes.

The four eligible candidates, or possibly more in case of a tie, receiving the most votes in each state in the First Round election will have their number of votes from that state, if the number is one thousand or more, advance to the national first round tally.  Votes for other candidates will not advance.

If the candidates receiving the least number of votes to be advanced should tie, as in two or more candidates tied for fourth, or three tied for third, or two tied for first and three tied for second, there may be more than four candidates whose votes will advance, as these tied candidates will all advance, but they shall not advance if there are four candidates who received a higher number of votes.

Completed absentee ballots must be sent before First Round election day, and if so sent, and if received before noon on the Tuesday following the second Monday in June, shall be counted.  Absentee ballots received after that time shall not be counted.

Each State's First Round Count must be completed and reported to the Congress or designated Federal authority, before noon in the state capital time zone, on the Friday following the 3rd Monday in June.

The National First Round Tally is to be made complete and official by the Congress before the end of business on June 30.
The four candidates having received the highest number of votes in the national first round tally, now called Finalist candidates, will advance to the October Presidential election.
If the candidates receiving the least number of votes to be advanced should tie, as in two or more candidates tied for 4th, or three or more tied for 3rd, there may be more than four finalist candidates as these tied candidates shall all advance, but they shall not advance if there are four finalist candidates who received more votes.

After results of the National First Round Tally are official, and before August 1, candidates shall make known their official choice of running mates, whose names shall also appear on the Presidential Election ballot, and shall be elected with the Presidential candidate.  If a running mate is not chosen before August 1, any running mate then chosen would be unofficial, and ineligible to be elected, and would have to be formally nominated after the election.  A Presidential finalist may not in the same election also be a running mate.  A running mate may only run with one Presidential finalist per election.

Americans of all states and the District of Columbia will vote for President on the third Monday in October.  This Presidential Election Day shall be a national holiday, except for government workers necessary for the election.  Voters must vote in person, with identification if required by the state, at a designated polling place.  Absentee ballots are prohibited.

States will ensure sufficient printing of ballots, and enough polling places with ample capacity for voters.  Responsible state and local officials, not to exclude Governors, must follow orders of Federal courts concerning preparations for elections, and may be prosecuted on a Federal charge for an action, or lack of minimal reasonable diligence, that infringes upon the right of citizens to vote.

Anyone who casts votes for President on more than one ballot in the same election shall be subject to a felony charge.

The Federal government shall provide voter registration and polling for citizens serving the United States abroad, and shall count and report this citizens abroad vote total to the Congress.

All Presidential Election Day ballots will include the same 4 tickets, or more if there was a tie, of finalist candidates for President and running mates, and one write-in line for President only.

Voters may vote for 0, 1, or 2 candidates for President.

One ballot having a ballot candidate selected, and the same name written in, should be marked by vote counters, and shall be counted as one vote.  An objectively unreadable written vote shall not count.  One ballot indicating three or more votes shall be counted as zero votes.

States will count the votes of their own residents, without adding bonus votes, and forward only their popular vote totals to the Congress.

States will not require any of the finalist candidates, nor require of write-in candidates, to petition, or to register, or pay fees, and will not impede their candidacy in any other way, except that if the number of votes for a write-in candidate does not exceed one half of 1% of the total number of votes for the four finalist candidates in a county or state, then the votes for that candidate shall be disregarded in that county or state.  The Congress will investigate successful write-in candidates as necessary to confirm their identities and qualifications.

Each state and the District of Columbia will be allowed Bonus Votes to be credited by the Congress to the ticket or candidate that receives the most votes from that state's voters.  The formula to determine the equal number of bonus votes for every state is based on the total resident population of all states and the District of Columbia as of the most recent census:
(Population) divided by (Fifty times the number of states including District of Columbia) = (Unrounded number of bonus votes) and round up to the next ten thousand.
Example: (309 million)/(50 times 51) = 121,176 which rounds up to 130,000 bonus votes for each state and the District of Columbia.
The Congress shall reduce the bonus votes of a state down to a number equal to the valid popular votes cast in that state.
If two or more tickets tie for first in a state, the Congress shall divide that state's bonus votes evenly between the tied candidates, and fractions of a bonus vote will be disregarded.

The Congress will tally the popular vote, and add the state bonus votes, and the ticket receiving the most votes will be the winner.

In the event of a national tie, or an impassable deadlock, the bonus votes shall be disregarded, and the popular vote of the Presidential Election shall determine the winner.

If there is then still a mathematical tie, the acting President of the United States shall cast a tie-breaking vote.

If there is no Vice President-elect, or the Vice President-elect is unable to take office, the President-elect shall nominate a Vice President, to be confirmed by the new Senate in January.  If not confirmed, the new President shall, before the 4th of February, nominate an eligible sitting Senator, and the Senators shall individually report to the President their choice of the two nominees before the 9th of February, and in case of a tie, the President will decide, even if all Senators refuse to choose.

If any candidate is elected and does not meet the qualifications of Presidency, the person shall not take office.  If a winning write-in candidate is found to be unqualified, the Senate will follow the procedure for the event of neither President-elect nor Vice President-elect able to take office.

If there is neither a President-elect nor a Vice President-elect able to take office, the new Senate, within 72 hours of swearing in, will choose a President from three candidates:  the person who was Speaker of the House on Presidential Election Day, the sitting Vice President, and the Presidential candidate who ranked next highest in the second round election's popular vote.  If the vote is tied, or if no Senators vote, the acting President shall choose between the tied candidates.  The President-elect will be inaugurated, and the new President and the Senate will then follow the process below for filling a Vice Presidential vacancy.  A President and Vice President selected in this manner shall serve a 2-year term, during the 2nd year of which, there shall be a Presidential election.

If the President-elect is unable to take office, the President-elect's official running mate, having received a winning number of votes and been made Vice President-elect, shall be sworn in as President, after which a new Vice President will be selected under the rule of Vice Presidential vacancy below.

If a vacancy appears in the Vice Presidency, the President shall within 21 days officially nominate two candidates.  The President Pro Tempore of the Senate has the option, during the same 21 days, to nominate one qualified member of the Senate, required to be aged at least 58 years but less than 73 years upon nomination.  After all nominations are made, the Senators shall within 9 days select one of the nominees, and shall individually and publicly report to the President their vote.  The President Pro Tempore's nominee receiving at least 55% of the Senators' votes shall become the new Vice President.  The President's nominees shall be confirmed by receiving the most votes, with the President to cast one tie-breaking vote for first or second on the 10th day, even if all Senators refuse to vote.  If no winner is produced, the Speaker of the House shall, before the 14th day, publicly choose the new Vice President from the two having received the most votes from Senators, or from Senators and the President if there was a tie-breaking vote cast.  If the Speaker of the House does not choose, on the 14th day the President shall make the choice.

The Congress may by law provide additional procedures for the case of the death or incapacity of any of the persons from whom the President, President-elect, or members of Congress may choose a new President or Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death or incapacity of any of the officials who shall have the right of choice.

If the rules of the Constitution and the law are insufficient to properly elect or appoint a President, in disastrous or unforseen circumstances, the Congress may appoint a President with a majority vote among all members of Congress together, and this appointed President may be replaced by another such vote, and any such appointed President shall be replaced by a vote of the citizens.

Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; the President may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.

The President shall nominate, and shall provide notice to the Senate of nominations, and without a Vote of Disapproval of one half of the Senators in sixty days, shall have Power to appoint Justices of the Supreme Court, and in the same way shall nominate and appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section. 3.

The President shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration Measures judged to be necessary and expedient.  The President may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, may adjourn them to such Time as he or she shall think proper.  The President shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers, shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section. 4.

The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes.

Summary of Presidential Elections, Article ii, 2016

This is a brief summary of the new rules for Presidential Elections outlined in the proposed Article II, 2016 version.

The word "state" in this document refers to the states and the District of Columbia.

  First Round Ballot access:

States will include on the ballot the candidates chosen by the five largest parties in the state, and the other candidates having the most petition signatures in that state.

The default limit is 25, but states may limit the number of first round candidates to as few as 10.

Ballot access fees are prohibited.

  First Round Election:

Held in every state on the same day in early June.

Absentee ballots shall be made available.

Each voter may vote for up to two candidates.

Each state will report the vote count of its top 4 candidates to the Congress.

  Second Round Ballot Access:

The Congress tallies the popular vote, the top 4 vote getters in the First Round tally will advance to the Second Round election.

Any candidate for Vice President must be officially selected as a running mate by one of the four Presidential candidates.

  Second Round Election:

The second round Presidential Election Day will take place in the fall, and will be a national holiday.

Voters must vote in person, with identification if required by the state. Absentee ballots are prohibited.  The Federal government shall provide registration and polling for citizens serving the United States abroad.

All ballots will include the same 4 tickets of candidates for President and Vice President, and one write-in line for President.

Voters may vote for 0, 1, or 2 tickets.

States report 2nd round popular vote totals to the Congress.

  Bonus votes:

To create a more fair balance of influence of individuals versus states, a formula to determine the number of bonus votes for each state will make the bonus votes around 6% of the total votes in an average election, possibly lower with greater voter turnout, and possibly over 20% with very low turnout.  The old state bonus was 19% of electoral votes, and made a vote in D.C. or Alaska count for 3 times the vote of a person in California.  Bonus votes will be calculated with this formula,
(U.S. Population)/(Fifty times the number of states) = (Bonus votes of each state) and round up to the next 10,000.  However, a state's bonus votes may not exceed its number of regular votes.

The Congress will tally the second-round popular vote, and allocate bonus votes as appropriate, and the ticket receiving the most votes will be the winner.

In the event of a national tie, or an impassable deadlock, the Statehood Bonus shall be disregarded, and the popular vote of the Election shall determine the winner.

If there is then still a tie, the acting President of the United States shall cast a tie-breaking vote.

Explanation of 2016 Article II

To correct defects of the Presidential election system that emerge in practice, to eliminate an unfair natural bias against any candidate outside of two dominant political parties, to encourage voters to participate and vote for their favorite candidate despite political pressure, to select more moderate Presidents who reflect the ideals of the people and not fringe ideology, to prevent a House of Representatives from making an unpopular 3rd place candidate President, to eliminate the conflict of interest by which a Speaker of the House could completely disregard the will of the voters and make himself President, to address the gross disparities of the obsolete Electoral College and "winner take all" policies of state governments, and to make clarifications to various points of previous contention, a Constitutional amendment is needed.

My 2016 proposed Article II is based upon the existing Article II, with parts copied from the Constitution.  It's interesting that they capitalized all the nouns, which I think makes it easier to read.

The existing relevant amendments have been included, such as D.C. treated as a state in Presidential elections, and inauguration on January 20.

I made an effort to remove gendered pronouns, though there are a few "he or she's" remaining.

The two largest additions, the bulk of this Article II, are a new Presidential election process, and procedures for appointing Vice Presidents and Presidents as may be necessary.

Outline of changes, mostly in order:

President has one six-year term.
Insist on four or eight all you want, but there's no reason it can't be six like a Senator, and lots of reasons to ban re-election.

A new set of qualifications.  A Pres or VP must be 40 years or older, must have one birth parent who was a U.S. citizen, must be a documented citizen living in the U.S. for twenty years, and must have served 4 years in Congress or Governor of a state.  The citizenship issue is tricky, I know my rules aren't perfect, but it's based on the Constitution, a sort of careful compromise, and if the voters want a President with a foreign accent, so be it.  And I didn't want to exclude Ted Cruz or John McCain or Donald Trump.

May be elected President once.  After being promoted and serving less than 3 years as President, followed by at least 3 years out of office, may be elected for one full 6-year term.  No limit on VP reelection.

The President will not run for office nor participate in political campaigns.

Parties can hold private caucuses or primaries in the winter if they choose, and pay for it themselves.

A first-round multi-party election will be held for all voters in each state to narrow down the same field of candidates, because we want the President to be chosen by the people, not by a party, or gang, or trick or loophole or mistake.

The 5 most popular parties in a state may each nominate one person to the ballot, so the parties still get some pull.  Other candidates will have access by petition signature count.  This creates a wide field of candidates to choose from, and creates competition to help prevent two-party domination.  The Constitution should encourage multiple parties instead of practically requiring two and only two.

No ballot access fees.  Some states are just plain corrupt with their high fees.  Like $20,000.

New rules for ballot access uniform in all states, first round election the same day in early June.  Presto, every state's spring election matters, and every voter has a reason to vote.

There may be up to 25 candidates on the first round ballot, and states may limit the number only as low as 10.  Parties will have to actually beat the competition instead of keeping them off the ballot.

First round will allow absentee ballots, no write-in line, no federal (abroad) ballots.  No write-in because it streamlines the counting, and if you cared, you should have petitioned for ballot access. These three items will reverse for the fall election.

Each voter may choose zero, one, or two candidates.  The right to vote for two can be thought of as similar to ranking candidates, or voting Yes to one and No to another candidate, but without the negative side effects.

On voting for two, we have seen recent elections where the winner would likely have not won if the system would more carefully gauge the people's preference, 1992, 2000, 2004.  In 1996 and 2008, the Republican primary produced a candidate they should have known was too old to run against a young Democrat.  Al Gore quite clearly would have beaten Bush if not for Nader taking some liberal votes away, and this is the most damning example, where the second most popular candidate was made President, and a decent candidate is made a spoiler.  Simply allowing people to vote for two would greatly alleviate these problems.  Realize that the candidates' strategy would change if the rules are changed, parties could allow their people to run as independents if they wanted to, more decent candidates would dare to run if they no longer needed a party nomination or no longer needed to worry about being a spoiler.  People should be allowed to vote for Nader AND Gore, for Bush AND McCain, or even Bush and Gore.  Let go of the single vote concept, unless you're God, and you absolutely know that one and only one person should be President.

The top 4 candidates from each state advance.  Detailed rules in case of tie.  If it seems wrong to drop the votes of 5th place and lower, realize that the old primaries are often winner-take-all, not just dropping 2nd place, but also stealing their votes.

Having the top four from each state advance is also a rare taste of proportional representation, though only as part of an election process.  Americans may not be familiar with proportional representation.  An example would be if each state could have three Senators, the Senatorial election would produce three new Senators at the same time, so one would be conservative, one liberal, maybe one ethnic or religious minority, and in this way more people than just the largest voting bloc get to be represented in government.

Congress tallies the first round vote among the advanced candidates of each state, and the top four in the nation are made Finalists for the fall election.  The fall ballot won't be random weirdos who clawed up to the top of their party, it will actually be the four top candidates, depending on how much the parties choose to restrain their own people.

Finalists choose official running mates.

The fall Presidential Election Day is made a national holiday, partly because absentee ballots will not be allowed.  Many people are concerned that absentee ballots can be fraudulent, also we should ideally be voting the same day instead of gradually over several weeks, also absentee ballots create counting issues.

I moved it into October as a suggestion, I want our friends in Florida to have plenty of counting time before Christmas, which was apparently a factor in the appointment of a recent President.  Also less chance of snow storms when people will be voting in person.  Columbus Day turns out not to be a good day because it coincides with Canadian Thanksgiving.

States are permitted to check voter identification, because it would be silly to not.  Voters will have plenty of warning and opportunity to get ID, and it should be free of cost, which I did not include in Article 2, because it would be more properly placed into an Article concerning people's rights, rather than the Presidency.

No absentee ballots (in the fall) for President, and the Federal government must provide polling for Americans abroad in its service.

Any who vote on two ballots will be prosecuted for a felony.

Election officials must not infringe on the right to vote, must obey orders of federal judges, and may be subject to charges if in violation.

The fall ballot will have 4 finalists, plus one write-in line.

Each voter may vote for up to two candidates.

Write-in candidates must receive a minimum percent of the vote in a county or state in order to be counted.  It would be hell to record every single clown's vote for comic strip characters.  And the write-in option could allow a candidate to bypass the entire process, so they better be really popular.

States report their votes to Congress.  Same as before.

A new formula, based on a percent of the U.S. population, will be used to calculate state bonus votes.  I estimate the vote of a person in Wyoming will count for 70% more than that of a Californian, instead of 200% more as it stands today.  I'd rather make it all popular vote, since one American should have one vote regardless of what state he is in.  But this is my offer of compromise, and if my formula isn't liked, it can be adjusted.  Compromise is needed, because the states would never ratify a drastic change to a pure popular vote.

It is ridiculous to say that a million acres of dirt should outvote a million people, but that's what we do.

A state's bonus votes will be limited to the number of individual votes cast in the state.  This prevents the last guy in Alaska from having 200,000 votes.  He will have 4 votes at most.

Congress tallies the popular and bonus votes, and the candidate with the most votes wins.  If it's too close to call (which shouldn't ever happen but we know how people are), the bonus votes are dropped and the winner determined by popular vote (a built-in tiebreaker).  If still tied, the acting President breaks the tie (which really should never ever happen, a tie is like a one in a million chance, but to be responsible, we need a rule to cover it).  Of course, the Supreme Court can always step in and do whatever it wants as long as the Constitution doesn't say they can't.  There is no perfect system.

A bunch of new contingency rules, checks and balances, in case the President-elect dies, in case there is no VP-elect, etc.  I have the President, the President Pro Tempore, and Speaker of the House involved in one-man decision making, which might seem undemocratic, but if we can't trust these guys, then what's the use.  Let them be fully and undeniably accountable for once.  The Senate votes to confirm, not the House (with the House Speaker still 2nd in line for the Presidency, we wouldn't want to continue a ridiculous conflict of interest).  When anyone fails to act, they will be bypassed.

The section on nominations, specifically Supreme Court, is modified to require a vote of disapproval of the Senators (not "the Senate") to stop an appointment, to prevent Mitch McConnell from abusing the system.  If the Senators don't vote against the nominee, the President has the authority to appoint.