--- title: "Presidential Elections | A Government That Works for the People" canonical: "https://govthatworks.org/elections" description: "A visual demonstration of the presidential election system proposed in A Government That Works for the People." --- Democratic Representation Amendment · Chapter 6 # What would a presidential election look like? In plain English: instead of winning states and collecting electoral votes, presidential tickets would compete for one national vote total. The winner would need more than half of the continuing vote, using ranked choice or another majority-producing method that Congress sets. Interactive demonstration · fictional candidates · not a forecast Current policy vs. the book ## The vote is counted under a different constitutional rule. The book’s amendment would replace presidential electors with an equal-weight national vote and require a count that produces majority support between the final two tickets. Current framework The Electoral College has 538 electors; 270 electoral votes are required to elect the President. State electoral votes are generally awarded under state rules, with Maine and Nebraska using district-based allocation. → Book proposal Presidential electors are abolished. Each vote has equal weight nationally, and Congress must provide a majority-producing count; ranked choice is one possible method, not the only one permitted by the draft. What it could mean for people A voter’s ballot would contribute directly to one national count rather than first determining a state’s electors. A ranked system could let a voter express backup preferences. Current framework If no presidential candidate receives an electoral-vote majority, the House chooses among the top three candidates, with each state delegation casting one vote. → Book proposal The proposed system requires a majority-producing national count. The draft does not specify a 50.0%–50.0% tie-breaker, so implementing law or revised amendment text would need one. What it could mean for people A perfect tie would not be silently converted into a winner. The legal tie procedure would have to be known before the election. Current framework States administer elections under a combination of constitutional, federal, and state rules. → Book proposal States continue administering the election, but Congress sets uniform national standards for ballot access, voting, tabulation, audits, recounts, certification deadlines, and disputes. What it could mean for people Core presidential-election rules would be more uniform nationwide, while local election offices would still run the election. Current framework source: [National Archives, Electoral College](https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/about). Book proposal: Chapter 6 and Amendment One. Current system vs. proposed system ## Two different ways to turn votes into a President. Current constitutional system ### State-based Electoral College - 538 electors are allocated among the states and the District of Columbia. - 270 electoral votes are required for a majority. - Most states use a statewide winner-take-all rule; Maine and Nebraska use district-based allocation for some electors. - If no ticket wins an electoral-vote majority, the presidential election can move to the House under the Twelfth Amendment. **Plain English:** winning the most votes nationally is not itself what determines the presidency; electoral votes do. Book proposal ### One national vote, majority winner - The President and Vice President are elected together by the people of the United States. - Every vote carries equal weight. - The winning ticket must receive majority support through ranked choice or another majority-producing method set by Congress. - Presidential electors are abolished; states continue administering the election under uniform national standards. **Plain English:** the national vote itself determines who wins, but the winner must finish with majority support. In plain English ### What actually changes for a voter? You still vote for a President and Vice President on one ticket. The difference is what happens after you vote. Today, your state converts votes into presidential electors. Under the book's proposal, your ballot would join one national count. If ranked choice is the method Congress chooses, you could rank tickets in order. If nobody starts above 50%, the lowest ticket would be removed and those ballots would move to each voter's next available choice until a ticket has majority support. **What stays the same:** states and local election officials would still run the election. **What disappears:** presidential electors and the Electoral College's contingent-election mechanism. **1. Vote nationally**Every eligible voter casts one ballot for the presidential ticket. **2. Count first choices**All ballots are added to one national count rather than separate electoral-vote contests. **3. Produce a majority**If no ticket has a majority, ranked preferences or another authorized method produces a final two-ticket majority. **4. Certify nationally**States administer the vote under common rules for tabulation, recounts, deadlines, and disputes. Ranked choice ### You rank, rather than vote twice. If your first choice is eliminated, your ballot can continue to your next ranked choice. You do not cast a second ballot and you do not need to predict who is likely to finish first. Majority ### 50.0% is a tie, not a majority. A majority means **more than** 50%. A 50.0%–50.0% final count would produce no winner under the book's stated majority rule. Exact tie ### The book does not specify a tie-breaker. Because the proposal abolishes presidential electors, the current House-by-state procedure would not apply. A recount and tie-resolution rule would need to be supplied by the implementing law or final amendment language. Election Studio — Geographic 3D Simulator ## Explore a fictional election or replay a historical one. New Election returns to the opening setup popup. The simulator offers actual state outlines with Alaska/Hawaii insets, adjustable 3D tilt and rotation, a top view, full-screen mode, state details, pause/resume, speed controls, and a consolidated scoreboard. Fictional elections generate fresh random ballot cohorts as counting progresses; no winner or final ballot table is preselected. Candidate 1 represents Democratic geography, Candidate 2 Republican geography, and Candidate 3 independent support. Relative state lean combines the selected cycle and two earlier cycles (60/30/10). State history and dated polling create realistic unequal odds; equal 50–50 or one-third odds are no longer claimed. Political climate choices cover every presidential election from 1960–2024, a dated September 2026 congressional polling snapshot, explicit 1992/1996 Ross Perot what-if climates, an unknown climate without polls or a national party advantage, and two early hypothetical 2028 outlook scenarios. The future scenarios use the Emerson August 16–17, 2026 national matchup tests for Buttigieg/Vance and Harris/Rubio; state geography and turnout use recent historical baselines with wider uncertainty. These are conditional educational scenarios, not calibrated predictions of the next election. Undecided respondents are not assigned to Candidate 3. Historical national presidential polling contributes to all historical climates. Six verified 2024 Marist state polls supplement that cycle; unpolled states use the geography prior. The current climate uses 2024 geography and a modest capped adjustment from Marist/Quinnipiac congressional surveys. These are not current presidential polls or a 2028 forecast. Polling can be switched off. Sources, dates, sample sizes, published MOE, missing metadata and model assumptions are accessible in History & sources. There is no live feed. Candidate 3 receives zero fictional EV in EC and Compare both modes unless an explicit Ross Perot what-if climate is selected. Perot mode permits EV only in the three jurisdictions with the strongest recorded other-candidate support for that cycle, including any district EV. A breakthrough is possible, not guaranteed; Perot actually won zero EV. This scenario constraint does not alter real historical replay electoral votes. Independent popular-vote wins remain possible with unequal odds. National, regional and local variation is drawn during counting. Model errors and poll weights are educational assumptions, not calibrated forecast probabilities. Fictional national voting uses first-choice totals and a required ranked count if nobody has a majority. In Compare both and NPV mode, the runoff control remains visible: it is enabled when no national majority exists and third place is unambiguous; otherwise it reports “No runoff needed” or an elimination tie. The actual third-place candidate is eliminated and fresh next-choice cohorts transfer ballots to the two finalists. Votes are conserved; ambiguous elimination ties and perfect final ties remain unresolved. Fictional runs use present-day EV allocations; Maine/Nebraska district EV use illustrative random district samples. Historical replay covers 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, and 2024. It compares the book’s majority-producing national rule, using recorded first choices and explicit hypothetical ranking assumptions when required, with National Archives EV actually cast, including period allocations, Maine/Nebraska splits, abstentions, and faithless electors. It groups other candidates for the scoreboard while providing individual national candidate totals in History & sources. The real 2000 and 2016 ballots select a different nationwide plurality leader from the EC winner. A fixed-ballot national plurality comparison does not predict how campaigns or turnout would change under another system. Historical ballots did not record rankings: ranked comparisons are labeled hypothetical and use a user-selected transfer assumption with no exhaustion. The original popular plurality and original EC record remain preserved as historical reference; a plurality alone is never declared the new-system winner. Historical grouped other-candidate transfers cannot reconstruct a true historical IRV result. Fully ranked simulated ballots assume no exhaustion. Direct link: [Election Studio](https://govthatworks.org/elections#simulation) Administration and recounts ## The proposal changes the rules around the count, too. **21 days**Proposed deadline for states to certify their results under the implementing statute described in the book. **+7 days**The national canvass would follow after state certification. **35 days**Proposed outer deadline for completing a national recount when the statutory trigger is met. **Sources and scope.** Current Electoral College figures and the current contingent-election procedure come from the U.S. National Archives. The proposed national-vote system, majority requirement, national standards, and timetable summarize Chapter 6 and Amendment One of *A Government That Works for the People*. The book does not specify how an exact 50.0%–50.0% national tie would be broken; the simulation therefore does not invent one. Fictional runs are educational, not forecasts. Historical replay uses recorded ballots; ranked scenarios are hypothetical. [National Archives: Electoral College](https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/about) · [National Archives: what happens if nobody has an electoral-vote majority](https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/key-dates) The Strongest Counterargument & Our Response ### Best case against A national presidential count centralizes rules and could create a national point of failure, while majority-count procedures may change campaign strategy in unpredictable ways. ### The author's response The proposed amendment keeps election administration with the states, creates national minimum standards, and leaves Congress a choice among ranked-choice tabulation, a runoff, or another majority-producing method. ### What remains uncertain The effect of a national popular vote on campaign geography and smaller states is a counterfactual the United States has not observed.