In the aftermath of the election, much has and is being spoken and written about the Electoral College. Some, such as Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca) want to do away with it altogether. Others, like Andrew Rudalevige in the Washington Post, offer explanations about how the Electoral College could be altered, if at all. Adding to the discussion are recent reports of individual electors in the states carried by Trump enduring outside pressure to change their votes from Trump to Clinton.

Varying by state are elector selection and responsibilities, as well as how they vote. Most, but not all states stipulate a winner take all policy. So there is not one absolute process applicable to all states and the District of Columbia.

For those more intelligently looking at the issue, striking the right balance between states and popular votes is a key factor. This factor is crucial to our representative form of government based on states’ rights. In view of the results, disturbing to many liberals, any attempts to change or do away with the Electoral College is likely to meet great resistance from smaller and rural states. And, lest we forget, it would require amending the Constitution, no small or easy feat.

Setting aside the deliberately intended difficulty of amending the Constitution, here is a suggestion for the Electoral College of the future. Let stand the requirement of 270 out of the total 538 electoral votes, or 50.19%, to be elected president. In partial deference to the “one man one vote -- total votes” argument, instead of allotting electoral votes by a winner take all requirement, allot each state’s electoral votes proportionally based mathematically upon the popular votes the candidates receive in the state, while eliminating individual electors.

For example, look at Florida with its 29 electoral votes. Based upon currently available data, Ms. Clinton received 47.8% of the popular vote, with 49.1% going to Mr. Trump. Based on these popular vote results, Ms. Clinton would receive 13.86 electoral votes, with 14.24 going to Mr. Trump. Completing the math for the 50 states plus the District of Columbia, the results tally 257.01 electoral votes for Ms. Clinton, with 253.37 for Mr. Trump, both short of the 270 needed to claim victory. With neither candidate above the necessary threshold, the modification would require a runoff election.   

This approach maintains state influence, while recognizing the popular vote. It also maintains the requirement for an actual Electoral College majority for victory, counterbalancing the arguments of some who argue for doing away with the Electoral College altogether and awarding the presidency to whoever receives the most popular votes. This argument is weak, because as the Washington Post piece cited, Darin DeWitt and Thomas Schwartz highlight that in a multiple candidate race under a simple “most votes” provision, a winner based on the plurality of votes could be “detested” by the majority of voters. Maintaining the 270 electoral vote threshold prevents just such a dilemma.

The modified Electoral College also addresses the disparity encountered in heavily red or blue states. For example, in the heavily blue state of California, Ms. Clinton carried 61.5% of the popular vote. Based on the current law, conservative voters often complain that their ballots for a Republican candidate effectively did not count, because the overwhelming number of Democrat ballots for Ms. Clinton resulted in all 55 electoral votes going to the Democratic candidate. The suggested modification can assuage these voters by allotting proportional number of electoral votes, which might actually increase voter turnout from the smaller parties in some of these heavily tilted states. Finally, the suggested modification also prevents individual electors from being selected by the party in power at the state level and possibly changing their votes in defiance of the will of the people.

As stated, maintaining the balance between the importance of each citizen’s vote and the representative democracy of our nation. The suggested modification is an interesting mental exercise, if nothing more.