Talk:Efforts to reform the United States Electoral College

First-past-the-post system
This article has a section headed First-past-the-post system which asserts, "The Electoral College employs a first-past-the-post voting system"; the First-past-the-post voting article (FPTP for short -- wikilinked there with a piped wikilink) says, "FPTP is a plurality voting method".

However, the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution says, "The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and [...]" (emphasis mine).

It appears to me that the Electoral College uses a Majoritarian ekectoral system.

Does this article need work in this regard? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is misleading and needs clarification. While nearly all states select electors on a plurality basis (first past the post), the EC itself is based on a majority vote. Moreover, Maine now used ranked-choice voting to select electors, which is based around a majority (though technically a winner can be declared without having received votes on a true majority of the ballots, but simply a majority in the final round, which is not necessarily the same thing). Mdewman6 (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We appear to be at cross-purposes here; that may be part of the confusion. You are addressing counting of popular votes in individual states to choose electors; I am. and the section at issue is, addressing counting of electoral votes in a joint congressional session to choose from among the recipients of elector votes. The subsection at issue here is part of the Criticisms section of the article. All of the subsections of that section -- particularly the one at issue -- concern counting electoral votes in a joint congressional session to choose from among the recipients of elector votes rather than counting popular votes in the individual states to choose electors. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I see that the discuss tag I had placed in the section at issue was removed without comment by this edit. I have replaced that tag with a disputed section tag. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I agree with you that stating the EC is a first past the post system is false and must be corrected. My point was that uninformed readers who don't really understand the EC might appreciate a clarifying statement about how while electors are typically chosen based on a plurality system, the vote of a majority of the electors is required for election as president/VP. But at the very least, the current text must be corrected. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The section in question is actually discussing the winner take all system for selecting electors, not the electoral college vote itself, bringing me back to my original point. That is the source of confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly I read it differently. The section begins, "The Electoral College employs a first-past-the-post voting system,". It appears that the section needs a serious re-write. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, a look at United States Electoral College informs me that Maine and Nebraska do not (currently) use winner-take-all. It seems to me that getting into state-by-state methods of choosing elecctors would de-focus this article from the Electoral College itself. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree the section needs a serious re-write and the sentence you quote is misleading and/or outright false. As to where we are confused, maybe you believe it should discuss the counting of electoral college votes and a majority being required there, but that is not what is presently discussed, and I don't think that is a criticism. The first paragraph discusses the potential for the plurality winner of the popular vote not winning the electoral college, which does require a majority, but the issue here has nothing to do with the counting of votes or the EC requiring a majority of EC vote, the crticism is just that the EC winner, regardless of its rules, does not necessarily coincide with the winner of the popular vote. For example, the EC could require only a plurality and the popular vote winner could still not have a plurality of the electoral vote, and its possible a winner of a majority of the popular vote could still lose in the EC. The second paragraph discusses how most states use winner take all based on a plurality of the popular vote, which also has nothing to do with the electoral votes themselves requiring a majority when counted by Congress; the criticism lies with how electors are chosen in the first place regardless of how their own votes are counted and the result decided.
 * I do have a POV on this; it's not what you probably think it is and, whatever it is, this is not the proper venue to discuss it. My discussion here is not linked to that POV.
 * MOS:LEADSENTENCE says, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. [...]".
 * The initial sentence of this article reads: "The United States Electoral College was established by the U.S. Constitution, which was adopted in 1789, as part of the process for the indirect election of the President and Vice-President of the United States.
 * ... :outdenting ...

Given the above, I'm wondering what the consensus here might be regarding what the subject of this article is. I presume that the intended subject has something to do with the article title, but I'm not sure exactly what. Perhaps the scope of this discussion ought to be widened to address that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC) '''This tangential discussion continued in the section below.

Opening paragraph
Following on a part of the discussion here in the section above, I propose that the opening paragraph of this article be rewritten something like the following:

"Efforts to reform the United States Electoral College, are ongoing . These efforts generally involve [very brief description of that, expanded in body sections listed in the TOC]"

The "ongoing as of" part of that and, possibly, the list of general areas involved can be revised as those efforts develop and either produce results or die out.

Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Due weight for inclusion of info on specific efforts to reform
This edit, adding a subsection on a 2-year term proposal by Brian Bergstein caught my eye. This seems to me to have less weight than similar subsections, and to have undue weight for inclusion. Barring discussion here leading to a consensus to the contrary, I'll probably remove it in a few days. Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The proposal ran in a newspaper of national importance as part of a series on proposed constitutional amendments, so I think it's notable, and worth mentioning because it's different than most conventional proposals. -- Beland (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Without going back and reviewing this -- going from memory -- this seems to come from a WP:PRIMARY source (see note d there) -- an opinion piece from an author with little or no clear connection to the topic. IMO, it would need more predication to establish its topical weight rather than simply taking that weight as a given. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)