|1 - Eliminates use of Electoral Votes and Electors. Electoral Points are offered instead. |2 - Arranges the 50 states (and the District of Columbia) into five groups of ten (or eleven) each. |3 - Each group offers a specific number of points, depending on its Priority Status in the particular election. |4 - "Winner Take All" abolished. Each eligible candidate receives appropriate shares of available points in each state. |5 - "Voluntary Concession Option". In certain situations, a runner-up may concede an election to the leading candidate. |ALSO: Grouping of states in each election | How points are earned | Details of each election | Election Statistics and Summaries
1 - Eliminates use of Electoral Votes and Electors : Electoral Points offered instead : Run-Off
This proposal would do away with the current method in which electors are chosen and Electoral Votes are cast for President and Vice President.
Instead, Electoral Points would be awarded directly to the candidates. The candidate who earns the most points -AND- is equal with or better than
the particular election's minimum "Need-To-Win" mark would be the winner. If there is no outright winner, then the top two points leaders would
face each other in a run-off election which would normally occur three to four weeks later. The run-off should produce a clear outright winner.
However, in the extremely unlikely event that there is no run-off winner, then the matter would be decided by the Congress, either under existing
laws or under laws adopted to go with the Electoral Points Format.
Each state, as well as the District of Columbia (D.C.), in accordance with a specific group assignment in a given election year (see below), would
offer a specific amount of Electoral Points. Such points would be distributed among each eligible candidate who has at least 5.00% of the particular
state's popular vote. To help minimize big landslides and create a more competitive atmosphere, there would never be any occurance of "winner-
take-all" unless the leading candidate is the only candidate in the particular state with at least 5.00% of that state's total popular vote.
For any election using Electoral Points to be won outright, the leading candidate must earn at least 50% plus ten of all available points. For example,
in a given year where 155,000 total Electoral Points may be available, at least 77,510 (half of 155,000 plus 10) will win it outright. If this requirement is
not satisfied, then a run-off between the top two Electoral Point Leaders would be conducted three to four weeks after the initial election. The run-off
would offer the same total amount of Electoral Points as in the initial election, and the "Need-To-Win" mark would remain the same.
2 - Arranges the 50 states (and the District of Columbia) into five groups of ten (or eleven) each.
There would be five groups of states -- A, B, C, D and E -- each with ten states as members. The "A" Group would also have an 11th member,
the District of Columbia (D.C.). The arrangements of the states and D.C. into each of these groups would be based purely on alphabetical order.
Factors such as population rank (as measured in the U.S. Census), Congressional apportionment or the re-shaping of certain areas by any political
party (or other entities) would not play any role whatsoever in this particular arrangement process.
3 - Each group offers a specific number of points, depending on its Priority Status in the particular election.
In each election, the priority order of the five groups would be rotated, and Electoral Points offered by the members of each group would be
based on priority order ranking, as follows -- 1st Priority: 5,000 points for each member; 2nd Priority: 4,000 points for each member; 3rd Priority:
3,000 points for each member; 4th Priority: 2,000 points for each member; 5th Priority: 1,000 points for each member.
This kind of rotation of priority status and points offering among the five groups in each election would have a profound effect on the overall
campaigning strategy of all candidates. In some years, the areas where a particular candidate might expect to do well would reside within
the higher priority groups, allowing for the collection of enough Electoral Points which would offset any gains made by a major opponent in
the lower priority groups. In other years, a candidate's ultimate success may rest on earning points from key states in all five groups. These
and other re-defined campaign strategies are among the many reasons behind the Electoral Points Proposal, where election-deciding power
is re-distributed from a small handful of states under the current Electoral College System to all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia (D.C.).
4 - "Winner-Take-All" Abolished
The practice of unconditional "winner-take-all" in each state, based on which candidate has the most popular votes in the particular state,
regardless of their percentage share of that state's total popular vote, would be abolished. In the Electoral Points process, the greatest share
of base Electoral Points from any state that a leading candidate can potentionally receive is limited to 75 percent. Example - if the particular
state offers 2,000 points, the 75% share amount is 1,500. The 75% limit rule would be waived -ONLY IF- the leading candidate is the only person
in the particular state with at least 5.00% of that state's total popular vote.
5 - Voluntary Concession Option
There may be occasional elections where the leading candidate ends up a small amount of points short of the need-to-win mark, while the
candidate in second place is well behind the leader. Overall odds and trends greatly favor the leader in a run-off. When such a scenario
occurs, the 2nd place candidate would have the option of voluntarily conceding the election to the leader, thereby eliminating the need
for a run-off.
If the 2nd place candidate officially submits a Voluntary Concession, then from them to the leader will pass the difference between the leader's
initial point total and the need-to-win mark plus 10 points. For example --- in an election with 152,000 total points and a need-to-win mark of
76,010, the leader and runner-up finish with 75,051 and 47,914 points respectively. The leader is 959 points short of the need-to-win mark and
the 2nd place finisher is 27,137 points behind the leader. The 2nd place candidate chooses to declare a Voluntary Concession. Upon verification
of the concession, the leader receives 969 points from the runner-up, thereby making their final point totals 76,020 and 46,945 respectively,
and the leader is officially certified as the election winner.
This page explains -- by way of several example scenarios involving two-or-more candidates -- how Electoral Points are earned.
Elections - Results using Electoral Points
Covering U.S. Presidential Elections from 1912 to the present, each of these pages shows how an election could be won or lost (or else
result in a run-off between the top two candidates) using Electoral Points. Also, comparisons involving Electoral Points, actual popular
votes and actual electoral votes are presented.
The widest and closest margins of victory between candidates; instances where run-offs might have occured; closest margins of victory
in relation to the "needed-to-win" mark; most and least points earned for 1st, 2nd, 3rd place; 4th and 5th place finishers.
Brief looks at the results of each election from 1912 to the present day. All candidates earning electoral points are mentioned.
Each brief look shows total tallies of Electoral Points, electoral votes and popular votes for the leading candidates.
Essential LinksExternal sources, special election articles and related subjects.